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

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/seccontract0187 and id is 1 raw text is: CONTRACTS 2D Generally C.A.1, 2018. Cit. generally in sup. and in cases cit. and quot. in sup. In a dispute arising from a failed deal concerning the sale of rail-freight cars, the district court granted seller's motion to dismiss, and this court vacated and remanded, holding that buyer adequately pleaded a claim for breach of contract by seller under Massachusetts law, which followed the Restatement Second of Contracts. The court noted that neither party argued that any law applied other than Massachusetts' common law of contracts or that Massachusetts law on the formation of commercial contracts differed in any material manner from the law of contracts set forth in the Restatement. APB Realty, Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific LLC, 889 F.3d 26, 28, 29. CHAPTER 1. MEANING OF TERMS § 1. Contract Defined D.Md.2018. Quot. in treatise quot. in disc. Physician brought an action against medical-device developer, alleging, among other things, that, in breach of an agreement between the parties, plaintiff was not adequately compensated for his experimental work to improve, market, and promote the device. This court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a claim for breach of express contract and implied-in-fact contract for underpayment of hourly consulting fees but not for the denial of an equity-ownership package. In discussing Maryland law on contract formation and interpretation, the court quoted Restatement Second of Contracts § I to define contract. Kantsevoy v. LumenR LLC, 301 F.Supp.3d 577,594. W.D.Wis.2018. Quot. in sup. In Chapter 11 proceedings for debtor that was in the business of selling sweetened and dried cranberries, creditor, which purchased and received seven loads of cranberries from debtor under an exclusive-sales agreement but had not yet paid for certain of the loads for which payment was not yet due, filed a motion to approve recoupment or to exercise right of setoff, alleging that debtor failed to deliver ten additional loads to creditor pursuant to its subsequent purchase order under the agreement. This court granted summary judgment for debtor, holding that, while the agreement was a binding and enforceable contract and the parties discussed the possibility of more loads, their minds met only on the seven original loads and the exclusivity provision. The court relied on the definitions of contract, offer, and acceptance set forth in Restatement Second of Contracts §§ 1, 24, and 50, in explaining that debtor's offer did not contemplate or specify terms for any additional loads beyond the first seven and creditor only manifested its assent to buy the first seven loads of cranberries under the specified terms. In re Cranberry Growers Cooperative, 588 B.R. 50, 55. § 2. Promise; Promisor; Promisee; Beneficiary COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AgI 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