This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Days later, 360 filed suit for specific performance; breach of contract resulting in at least $1 million in damages, including damage to its reputation with investors; and undue enrichment for the rezoning, approximately $1.5 DonRob counterclaimed for breach of contract. million in Site improvements and other work.
But two recent state-court decisions evidence a change in that trend: Both held that the Economic Loss Doctrine bars fraud claims because parties to a commercial contract — often sophisticated and represented by counsel — allocate risk, prescribe damages, and rely on the terms of the bargain.
In the law of contracts, damages suffered by the nonbreaching party may be either “direct” (loss of the benefit of the bargain, measured by the cost of remedying the deficient performance) or “consequential” (other reasonably foreseeable harm caused by the breach). In Mentis Sciences, Inc. 3d 799, 808, 11 N.E.3d
In an earlier blog ( #62 ) I discussed the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that limits a contracting party’s exercise of the discretion afforded to it by the parties’ contract. The jilted sub sued for breach of contract and breach of the Consumer Protection Act. Ambrose Development, LLC , No.
The Court relied on the general rule of contract law that “Where a promisor ‘prevents or hinders’ fulfillment of a condition which otherwise would have been fulfilled, ‘performance of the condition is excused’ and the promisor’s liability is ‘fixed’ regardless of the condition’s non-fulfillment.”
The cases with which he has been involved are varied and wide-ranging and include personal injury, breach of contract, criminal defense, commercial disputes, and consumer fraud. Sabo & Zahn LLC is an Illinois Limited Liability Company. Termination of contract bars arbitration » August 05, 2005. Copyright Notice.
In regards to construction today, the Business Dictionary defines a construction punch list as, “Listing of items requiring immediate attention” and as a “Document listing work that does not conform to contract specifications, usually attached to the certificate of substantial completion.
In regards to construction today, the Business Dictionary defines a punch list as, “Listing of items requiring immediate attention” and as a “Document listing work that does not conform to contract specifications, usually attached to the certificate of substantial completion.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 116,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content