Taidoc Technology Corp. v. Diagnostic Devices, Inc. The parties’ settlement agreement in their previous contract/tort action contained a release that was broad enough to encompass any pre-settlement patent infringement claims.
Samost v. Duke University Even if the “Bulletin of Duke University, The Duke Community Standard in Practice: A Guide for Undergraduates” was a contract between Duke and its students, plaintiffs cannot show that Duke breached the Bulletin’s terms because plaintiffs filed suit instead of allowing the disciplinary process to continue to completion.
Lonesource, Inc. v. United Stationers Supply Co. : A letter from the defendant-wholesaler to the plaintiff-reseller said that, if at any point plaintiff had failed to comply with the parties’ agreement, the obligations under the contract would have automatically terminated; nonetheless, the letter was not an anticipatory breach of the contract.
Muriithi v. Shuttle Express Inc. An arbitration clause in a franchise agreement signed by a driver for an airport shuttle service is not unconscionable because it includes a class action waiver and a requirement to split arbitration fees, and the 4th Circuit vacates the district court decision and remands the case for entry of an order compelling arbitration.
Anderson v. FMC Corp. Without a case precisely on point, the court declines to rule that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant-employer’s claim that, in this action under the Retaliatory Discrimination Act, plaintiff has breached the agreement that settled his workers’ compensation claim.
United States ex rel. Farm Service Agency v. Harvey Fertilizer & Gas Co. Plaintiff’s earlier security interest in a partnership’s farm equipment has priority over defendant’s later security agreement with a partner, especially since most of the equipment that defendant auctioned off can be matched to plaintiff’s list of collateral and the auction receipt identified the partnership as the seller.
Glynn v. EDO Corp., Impact Science & Technology An engineer for a government contractor that produces explosive devices does not qualify for protection under the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision for his termination after he reported alleged fraudulent conduct to the government, as his allegations about quality control did not affect the government customer’s acceptance of the product; the 4th Circuit upholds summary judgment for defendant contractor.
U.S. ex rel. Benjamin Carter v. Halliburton Co. A former employee of a government contractor that provided military logistical support in Iraq has a claim under the False Claims Act based on allegations that the contractor submitted fraudulent claims for payment for water purification services; the 4th Circuit says the FCA’s statute of limitations is tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act even though the U.S. is not a plaintiff.
Godon Construction, Inc. v. Primo Enterprises, LLC The plaintiff-contractor seeks payment for work done pursuant to oral modifications of the parties’ remodeling contract
Hardison v. Kia Motors America, Inc Even though defendant did not act within the time prescribed by North Carolina’s Lemon Law, defendant acted reasonably and repaired plaintiffs’ car; therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney’s fees or treble damages under the Lemon Law.