About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (2016)

handle is hein.ali/contract0184 and id is 1 raw text is: CONTRACTS Generally C.A.3, 2016. Cit. generally in sup., cit. generally in ftn., cit. generally in case cit. in ftn. Trucking company that was assigned direct purchaser's antitrust claims filed a putative antitrust class action to represent Class 8 truck purchasers against, among others, manufacturers of transmissions for Class 8 heavy-duty trucks, alleging that defendants engaged in a monopolization conspiracy. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. This court reversed and remanded, holding that an assignment of a federal antitrust claim did not need to be supported by bargained-for consideration in order to confer standing on an indirect purchaser. The court cited caselaw that relied on the Restatement of Contracts and the Restatement Second of Contracts in determining the contours of federal common law, and concluded that the Restatement Second of Contracts supported its conclusion that consideration was not required to give effect to an assignment. Wallach v. Eaton Corporation, 837 F.3d 356, 361, 367, 368. Introduction C.A.3, 2016. Intro. quot. in sup. Trucking company that was assigned direct purchaser's antitrust claims filed a putative antitrust class action to represent Class 8 truck purchasers against, among others, manufacturers of transmissions for Class 8 heavy-duty trucks, alleging that defendants engaged in a monopolization conspiracy. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. This court reversed and remanded, holding that an assignment of a federal antitrust claim did not need to be supported by bargained-for consideration in order to confer standing on an indirect purchaser. The court quoted the Introduction to the Restatement of Contracts in determining the contours of federal common law, and concluded that the Restatement Second of Contracts supported its conclusion that consideration was not required to give effect to an assignment. Wallach v. Eaton Corporation, 837 F.3d 356, 367. CHAPTER 3. FORMATION OF INFORMAL CONTRACTS TOPIC 2. MANIFESTATION OF ASSENT § 56. Acceptance of Offer for Unilateral Contract; Necessity of Notification to Offeror Kan.App.2017. Com. (a) cit. in sup. Masonry subcontractor sued general contractor, alleging that defendant failed to pay for services performed in connection with four public-school construction projects. After a bench trial, the trial court found that, although the parties did not enter into express contracts, they entered into implied-in-fact contracts based on the written proposals that plaintiff sent to defendant, which defendant used to bid on the projects. Affirming, this court held that plaintiff did not accept the terms of the signed subcontracts that defendant sent to plaintiff after it was awarded each project, because plaintiff did not sign the subcontracts and instead sent its own signed forms containing different terms to defendant. The court rejected defendant's argument that plaintiff accepted the For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most