Williams v. O’Charley’s, Inc.
Tagged with: ContractRead More »
Hardin v. York Memorial Park In 1993, when her husband died, plaintiffs’ decedent bought three burial plots from defendants — one for her husband, one for herself, and one for another family member. Where defendants resold one of the plots to a stranger in 1993, and where plaintiffs originally filed suit on Nov. 9, 2006, their breach of contract claim as to that plot is time-barred. However, where the complaint does not allege the date on which the third plot was resold to a stranger, plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim as to the third plot is not barred by the statute of limitations.Read More »
U.S. ex rel. Jon H. Oberg v. Kentucky Higher Educ. Student Loan Corp. A district court did not use the correct test when analyzing whether student loan corporations formed by four different states may be sued in a qui tam action alleging they defrauded the U.S. Department of Education; the 4th Circuit vacates a lower court’s dismissal of the suit on the ground that the corporations were “state agencies” not subject to suit under the False Claims Act, and remands for the district court to apply an “arm of the state” analysis.Read More »
Epes v. B.E. Waterhouse, LLC Where both the lease assignment and plaintiff’s guaranty reflect that the assignment would not release plaintiff from liability as guarantor, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendant-landlords on plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment that plaintiff “has no ongoing duties, obligations, or liability of any type to defendants under any agreement or under applicable law.”Read More »
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. Talford In support of its claim that the defendant-patient owed it $14,419.57 for a four-day hospitalization, the plaintiff-hospital submitted the affidavits of its Manager of Patient Financial Services, Legal Accounts and its Director, Revenue Management. These affidavits were minimally sufficient to satisfy the hospital’s burden of proof as to damages since they indicate that the bill was (1) reasonable based on the amounts other similarly situated market participants charged similarly situated patients and (2) consistent with various published billing guidelines and regulations.Read More »
Young & McQueen Grading Co. v. Mar-Comm & Associates, Inc. It doesn’t matter that the plaintiff-contractor dealt with two entities – Mar-Comm & Associates, Inc. (the actual property owner) and Mar-Comm & Associates of North Carolina, LLC – with regard to a construction project since Mar-Comm of NC was acting as Mar-Comm’s agent.Read More »
Topp v. Big Rock Foundation, Inc. Although the plaintiff-contestants were warned not to let the lack of a fishing license jeopardize a $1,000,000 prize, their first mate entered the contest without renewing his fishing license. Since plaintiffs failed to show that their disqualification was the result of arbitrariness, fraud or collusion, the defendant-foundation’s decision stands.Read More »
Micro Capital Investors, Inc. v. Broyhill Furniture Industries Defendant’s furniture factory and adjacent warehouse were heated by boilers that were powered by burning waste wood, a byproduct of the manufacturing process. When plaintiff bought the factory from defendant, plaintiff agreed to continue to provide heat to the adjacent warehouse, and defendant agreed to pay one-fourth of defendant’s “total heating bill.” Under the particular circumstances of this case, these terms were too indefinite to be enforceable.
Tagged with: ContractRead More »
Selective Insurance Co. of America v. Glen Wilde, LLC The defendant-project owner has not shown that the project’s general contractor is a necessary or indispensable party in this action, in which the surety seeks a declaratory judgment that the performance and payment bonds it issued are unenforceable.Read More »
BOSS Urgent Care, PLLC v. Urgent Care Works, LLC Even though plaintiffs characterize the parties’ letter agreement as an “agreement to agree”, the parties’ subsequent references to the letter agreement and their partial performance thereunder shows that the letter agreement was an enforceable settlement contract.Read More »