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

Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/contract0189 and id is 1 raw text is: CONTRACTS CHAPTER 1. MEANING OF TERMS § 12. Unilateral and Bilateral Contracts Ct.Fed.Cl.2019. Quot. in ftn. Health insurer sued the United States, alleging, among other things, that the government breached an implied-in-fact contract when it ceased making cost-sharing reduction payments that it and other insurers were entitled to receive under the Affordable Care Act. This court granted summary judgment for insurer. In making its decision, the court declined to resolve insurer's contention that it had entered into bilateral contracts with the government, noting that, while Restatement of Contracts § 12 explained the difference between unilateral and bilateral contracts, Restatement Second of Contracts § 1 abandoned that terminology on the ground that the utility of the distinction was doubtful. Maine Community Health Options v. United States, 143 Fed.Cl. 381, 400. Ct.Fed.Cl.2019. Quot. in ftn. Health insurer brought a lawsuit against the United States, alleging, among other things, that defendant violated statutory mandates and breached the parties' contract by making cost-sharing reduction payments to plaintiff under the Affordable Care Act. This court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, holding, inter alia, that defendant breached an implied-in-fact contract. The court observed that plaintiff had argued that, under Restatement of Contracts § 12, there was a unilateral contract, or, in the alternative, a bilateral contract between the parties, but explained that that distinction was erased by Restatement Second of Contracts § 1, Commentf. Maine Community Health Options v. United States, 142 Fed.Cl. 53, 73. CHAPTER 3. FORMATION OF INFORMAL CONTRACTS TOPIC 4. INFORMAL CONTRACTS WITHOUT ASSENT OR CONSIDERATION § 90. Promise Reasonably Inducing Definite and Substantial Action C.A.6, 2019. Cit. in ftn. Former employees brought claims sounding in, among other things, promissory estoppel against company that acquired former employer, alleging that defendant breached verbal promises made prior to the acquisition, in which it allegedly assured plaintiffs that they would keep their positions and receive better pay while working for defendant. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant. Affirming in part, this court held that plaintiffs failed to show that they reasonably relied on defendant's promise, a required element of a claim for promissory estoppel under Kentucky law, which followed Restatement Second of Contracts § 90 and Restatement of Contracts § 90. The court pointed out that, before defendant made the alleged promises, plaintiffs acknowledged in writing that they were at-will employees and would remain so unless they entered into written employment agreements. Bisig v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 940 F.3d 205, 216. COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 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