TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — Two inmates are suing the Twin Falls County jail saying they have not received adequate mental health care.English said he was denied his psychiatric medication for three months and placed in solitary confinement when staff mistakenly believed he was suicidal. He said Preal was put in solitary and at one point made to strip naked because jail staff believed he was suicidal. http://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/8e85dbcfaf4147b1e9c3b6da60457d52
The facts of Adams v Lindsell are that: the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs on 2 September, offering to sell them some wool and requested that the plaintiffs reply ‘in course of post'. The letter which contained the offer was wrongly addressed and therefore the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. As a result of this delay, the letter of acceptance was not received until 9 September by the defendants, and this was two days later than the defendants would have expected to receive it. Because of this, on 8 September the defendants had sold the wool to a third person. The question for the court in Adams v Lindsell was therefore whether a contract of sale had been entered into before 8 September when the wool was sold to the third party. If the acceptance was effective when it arrived at the address or when the defendant saw it, then no contract would have been made and the sale to the third party would amount to revocation of the offer. However, the court held that the offer had been accepted as soon as the letter had been posted. Thus, in Adams v Lindsell there was indeed a contract in existence before the sale of the wool to the third party, even though the letter had not actually been received by the defendant. The defendant was therefore liable in breach of contract.
The Defendant should have waited for the plaintiff's reply before they went ahead and sold the wool to someone else. But it was not the defendants fault either because of the way the mailing took place. So in all, the case was dismissed without a ruling.
Donald Trump breached a contract with an 87-year-old woman on the base of two apartment rooms. The tower had told her she could share in some of the tower's revenue for purchasing two of the rooms. After the tower changed their policy, she took them to court for the return of her deposit of $516,000.
In the above article, the site describes how the school board of Portland Public Schools recently reached an agreement to sign on more teachers. The contract would increase the amount of teachers available and reduce class sizes. The contract also increased the teachers' wages by 2.3%.
Actress from law firm ad files $1 million for breach of contract lawsuit Elena Aroaz was paid $600 for her work in a commercial produced by the Levinson Trachtenberg Group, but when the time limit of that ad ended, she found out her likeness had been used across the country. It was only supposed to air on local cable TV for a year. he only received an extra $1,500 in addition to the $600 she was initially paid to star in the ad. Since then, the actress alleges, Levinson Trachtenberg Group also got in on the act, selling the commercial licensing rights and rights to her image to several other U.S. law firms — some of which used her images to create massive billboards advertising their services, according to her lawsuit. The Levinson Trachtenberg Group paid her an additional $1,500 in 2012 when she confronted them about an ad using her image on a billboard in Arizona, Aroaz says. She later discovered that the law firm had paid the producer $20,000 for the licensing rights, her suit says.
Link --> http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/actress-files-1-million-breach-contract-lawsuit-article-1.1366762
An actress hired to portray a victim in a wrongful injury case in a law firm’s tongue-in-cheek commercial has filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the spot’s producer. Actress Elena Aroaz, 36, says in a suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court that Levinson Trachtenberg Group paid her $600 in 2009 to appear in the 30-second ad, which was only supposed to air on local cable TV for a year. In the commercial the dark-haired thespian stares indignantly into the camera while talking about the horrible pain of her “injury.” “It’s like I had this huge machete chopping down on my hand every time I moved,” she says, wincing in feigned pain as a dirge-like piano soundtrack plays. “Someone has to pay,” she says, whipping out a slim finger covered in a green Band Aid to reveal her injury — a paper cut. Aroaz is suing for $1 million after her ad went national and she only received an extra $1,500 in addition to the $600 she was initially paid to star in the ad. Aroaz is suing for $1 million after her ad went national and she only received an extra $1,500 in addition to the $600 she was initially paid to star in the ad.
As the words “There are some cases even we can’t win,” roll over the screen, a deep male voice tells viewers to call the law firm of Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman. “But remember, you need to really be injured,” the announcer says. After the spoof ad became a sensation — even getting a mention in the New York Times — the producer licensed it and the rights to Aroaz’s image to several other law firms around the country without her knowledge, she says in court papers. Since then, the actress alleges, Levinson Trachtenberg Group also got in on the act, selling the commercial licensing rights and rights to her image to several other U.S. law firms — some of which used her images to create massive billboards advertising their services, according to her lawsuit. The producer cut deals with law firms in New Mexico, Washington, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Kansas, South Carolina and Colorado, and earned $250,000 off her work without compensating her, the lawsuit charges. The Levinson Trachtenberg Group paid her an additional $1,500 in 2012 when she confronted them about an ad using her image on a billboard in Arizona, Aroaz says. She later discovered that the law firm had paid the producer $20,000 for the licensing rights, her suit says. Aroaz is suing the producers and the law firms that used the commercial; she is asking for compensation of close to $1 million. None of the parties involved in the lawsuit returned calls for comment.
The actress might actually have a case. Many people don’t know that New York will, in limited circumstances, allow recovery even if you didn't have a written or signed agreement.
In Cook County, Illinois, same-sex marriage licenses were distributed. 258 same-sex couples received from David Orr, the clerk, a contract of marriage, officially allowing the two individuals to become a couple.
Carbolic smoke ball company manufactured a carbolic smoke ball. The company offered a reward to anyone who would use the ball as directed and contracted influenza or other diseases. When one man bought the product and contracted influenza, but was not rewarded for this. He then sued the company for breach of contract. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/carlill-carbolic-smoke-ball.html
This is about civil rather than common law .The City of London would lose out to the US if the law became a default for cross-border contracts across the EU. The European Commission vice-president and justice commissioner, said the law will cut transaction costs for small businesses while giving Europe’s 507 million consumers greater choice at cheaper prices when shopping across the border. Also under a propose law European have the choice to sale law for cross-border contracts when offering goods across the EU.
1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/sc-cons-0801-housing-counsel-20130802,0,4317244.column This person was 23 years old when he decided to buy a home in California. He signed a contract without reading through contract first. The paragraph was boiler plate an he didn't want create a scene.
Why didn't he want to create a scene? He's basically already doing so by not taking the time to read a contract that is inescapable. And in boiler plate, he should have known that the contract hasn't changed a bit. He should be more careful about making hasty agreements on paper.
The Town of Chevy Chase Council voted to spend 350 grand to provide advice and government to Washington to fight against Maryland's. The latter plans to build a light-rail Purple line. This Purple line will stretch over 16 miles between Bethesda and New Carrollton. The project will require more than $2 billion in construction aid.
We recently went over the story of Lacy T., a Raiderette who is suing the Oakland Raiders Club for violation of California labor laws. Well, the lawsuit is picking up steam as a second Raiderette joined the suit.
Twenty-nine-year-old Sarah G. (last names aren't disclosed for safety reasons) spent four seasons with the Raiders as a cheerleader but joined the lawsuit, claiming their contract with the Club was rife with illegal provisions.
For all you employment attorneys out there, check out this laundry list of alleged violations:
Minimum wage and overtime. According to the Raiderettes' suit, their contract calls for $125 per home game, or $1,250 per season. On paper, that looks fine and dandy. The problem, they say, is that they work nine hours on each game day, must attend two to three rehearsals per week, and are also required to attend 10 charity events per season, reports San Francisco's KTVU-TV. If you count those unpaid hours that amounts to $5 an hour, falling far below California's minimum wage, which is flirting with the idea of becoming the highest of any U.S. state. Withholding pay. The cheerleaders claim they get paid at the end of the season. California law requires compensating workers at least twice a month but creates an exemption for creative professionals. Still, creative professionals must typically be paid at least once a month, so the team could potentially lose on this front. Business expenses. Raiderettes are also contractually required to foot their own travel expenses, which is usually a no-no under federal law. They also have to pay out-of-pocket for accessories such as tights, false eyelashes and a yoga mat, and also pay for a pricey team-selected hairstylist. The cost and maintenance of uniforms are considered business expenses under California law and must be reimbursed by employers. Unfortunately for the Raiderettes, the accessories named in the suit might not be sufficiently distinctive in design and color to count as uniforms. Wage deductions. The Raiderettes' suit alleges the Club unlawfully deducts from their wages by imposing so-called "fines" of $10 or more for rule infractions such as failing to bring the right pom-poms to rehearsals. Lacy T. is seeking to make the lawsuit a class action on behalf of all Raiderettes who have cheered since 2010, and seeks an injunction against the Club's policies, and backpay, among other monetary penalties, reports KTVU.
A case management conference is slated for March 25 in Alameda, so stay tuned.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2013/08/pilot-flying-j-fuel-rebate-settlement-what-will-customers-get.html#more A Pilot Flying J settlement related to the company's fuel-rebate scandal has received preliminary approval from a court. The proposed agreement would give trucking firms more than $40 million, and their attorneys another $14 million, The Plain Dealer of Cleveland reports.
Pilot Flying J, the country's biggest truck-stop chain, designed the settlement after being slapped with about 20 lawsuits -- filed by truckers and trucking companies -- related to fuel-rebate shortages that came to light after raids by FBI and IRS agents.
Here's what affected customers can expect from the settlement offer:
Class members will have their accounts audited from January 1, 2005, through July 15, 2013, at no cost to determine how much they are owed in unpaid rebates and discounts. Each class member then will be paid 100 percent of the amount owed, plus 6 percent interest. A court-appointed Independent Accountant will check the accuracy of Pilot Flying J's calculations. Class members who disagree with Pilot Flying J's audit of their account may challenge that result through the Independent Accountant or the court. Opt-Out?
For some class actions, members must opt-in to the class. In this case, however, eligible Pilot Flying J customers were automatically members of the class -- they didn't have to do anything to join the class, according to the settlement letter.
Customers who don't want to be roped into the settlement must opt-out of the class. When you opt out of a class, you may then pursue your own remedies outside of the class in a separate lawsuit.
The upside of going it alone is that you can pursue additional damages not included in the settlement. The major downside is time and cost. By contrast, class members don't have to hire a lawyer to receive any payment owed.
Another option for Pilot Flying J customers who don't like the settlement is to remain in the class action, but to tell the Arkansas court why they disagree with the settlement and ask the court not to approve it.
A fairness hearing, which could lead to final approval, is scheduled for November 25. Meantime, members of the eligible class of Pilot Flying J customers have until October 15 to opt-out of the class or to express their grievances to the court.
Italian consumer and environmental group, Codacons, has announced that it is preparing a class-action lawsuit and that over 70 passengers who were on board the ship that ran aground late Friday off the Tuscany coast have already signed as plaintiffs. Anyone who is trying to sue Costa Concodia’s corporate parent, Carnival Cruise Lines, they will find that the company is protected by international law and by a carefully worded contract that passengers accept when they buy their tickets.
the company blames this on the ship’s captain, Francesco Schettino, calling the accident “human error” and saying that the captain diverted the ship from its authorized route. The company, based in Miami, did not respond to requests for comment for this article. For cruises that do not involve a United States port, the contract states, any litigation must be brought in Genoa, Italy, and be governed by Italian law.
A man is suing a florist for $1 million dollars for letting his wife in on a secret. That He had a girlfriend. He accuses 1-800-flowers.com of failing to keep a purchase for his paramour private. Also for upping the price tag of his divorce. The company says it can't take responsibility "for an individual's personal conduct,".
In this article a model that was with Justin Bieber on the night he was arrested in Miami is suing the NY Daily News and claiming the paper lied about her "long criminal record." She also filed a defamation suit against the paper today ... and in the docs she says the Daily News "maliciously and intentionally" printed a story detailing 5 previous arrests, including one for misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon.
In this article its a about The trial judge found that the marriage contract was ambiguous because it did not explicitly deal with the increase in value of assets. To resolve this ambiguity, the trial judge "looked at what she considered to be the overall objective intention of the parties, and concluded that the "objective intention at the time was to treat each other fairly. The trial judge used this intention to guide her interpretation of the agreement.
A man is suing a florist for $1 million dollars for letting his wife in on a secret. That He had a girlfriend. He accuses 1-800-flowers.com of failing to keep a purchase for his paramour private. Also for upping the price tag of his divorce. The company says it can't take responsibility "for an individual's personal conduct,".
TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — Two inmates are suing the Twin Falls County jail saying they have not received adequate mental health care.English said he was denied his psychiatric medication for three months and placed in solitary confinement when staff mistakenly believed he was suicidal. He said Preal was put in solitary and at one point made to strip naked because jail staff believed he was suicidal.
ReplyDeletehttp://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/8e85dbcfaf4147b1e9c3b6da60457d52
Was the jail obligated to provide health care to the inmate?
Deletehttp://www.legalmax.info/members2/conbook/adams_v_.htm
ReplyDeleteThe facts of Adams v Lindsell are that: the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs on 2 September, offering to sell them some wool and requested that the plaintiffs reply ‘in course of post'. The letter which contained the offer was wrongly addressed and therefore the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. As a result of this delay, the letter of acceptance was not received until 9 September by the defendants, and this was two days later than the defendants would have expected to receive it. Because of this, on 8 September the defendants had sold the wool to a third person. The question for the court in Adams v Lindsell was therefore whether a contract of sale had been entered into before 8 September when the wool was sold to the third party. If the acceptance was effective when it arrived at the address or when the defendant saw it, then no contract would have been made and the sale to the third party would amount to revocation of the offer. However, the court held that the offer had been accepted as soon as the letter had been posted. Thus, in Adams v Lindsell there was indeed a contract in existence before the sale of the wool to the third party, even though the letter had not actually been received by the defendant. The defendant was therefore liable in breach of contract.
Who was the plaintiff an the defendant?
Deleteso who had to give who money?
ReplyDeleteThe Defendant should have waited for the plaintiff's reply before they went ahead and sold the wool to someone else. But it was not the defendants fault either because of the way the mailing took place. So in all, the case was dismissed without a ruling.
Deletehttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-trump-expected-to-testify-in-chicago-about-condo-deal-20130514,0,7352689.story
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump breached a contract with an 87-year-old woman on the base of two apartment rooms. The tower had told her she could share in some of the tower's revenue for purchasing two of the rooms. After the tower changed their policy, she took them to court for the return of her deposit of $516,000.
Why she suing for so much bruh?
DeleteBecause that was the deposit she made on the two apartments, therefore she is suing to get all of her money back.
Deletehttp://www.kgw.com/news/Portland-school-board-set-to-accept-contract-248226511.html
ReplyDeleteIn the above article, the site describes how the school board of Portland Public Schools recently reached an agreement to sign on more teachers. The contract would increase the amount of teachers available and reduce class sizes. The contract also increased the teachers' wages by 2.3%.
How are the average parents reacting to this? Glad the classes will be more individual for their child of upset with a likely tax raise?
DeleteThe average parents are happy about this since their kids are getting more individual time with the teacher.
DeleteActress from law firm ad files $1 million for breach of contract lawsuit
ReplyDeleteElena Aroaz was paid $600 for her work in a commercial produced by the Levinson Trachtenberg Group, but when the time limit of that ad ended, she found out her likeness had been used across the country. It was only supposed to air on local cable TV for a year. he only received an extra $1,500 in addition to the $600 she was initially paid to star in the ad. Since then, the actress alleges, Levinson Trachtenberg Group also got in on the act, selling the commercial licensing rights and rights to her image to several other U.S. law firms — some of which used her images to create massive billboards advertising their services, according to her lawsuit. The Levinson Trachtenberg Group paid her an additional $1,500 in 2012 when she confronted them about an ad using her image on a billboard in Arizona, Aroaz says. She later discovered that the law firm had paid the producer $20,000 for the licensing rights, her suit says.
Link --> http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/actress-files-1-million-breach-contract-lawsuit-article-1.1366762
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/actress-files-1-million-breach-contract-lawsuit-article-1.1366762
ReplyDeleteAn actress hired to portray a victim in a wrongful injury case in a law firm’s tongue-in-cheek commercial has filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the spot’s producer.
Actress Elena Aroaz, 36, says in a suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court that Levinson Trachtenberg Group paid her $600 in 2009 to appear in the 30-second ad, which was only supposed to air on local cable TV for a year.
In the commercial the dark-haired thespian stares indignantly into the camera while talking about the horrible pain of her “injury.”
“It’s like I had this huge machete chopping down on my hand every time I moved,” she says, wincing in feigned pain as a dirge-like piano soundtrack plays.
“Someone has to pay,” she says, whipping out a slim finger covered in a green Band Aid to reveal her injury — a paper cut. Aroaz is suing for $1 million after her ad went national and she only received an extra $1,500 in addition to the $600 she was initially paid to star in the ad. Aroaz is suing for $1 million after her ad went national and she only received an extra $1,500 in addition to the $600 she was initially paid to star in the ad.
As the words “There are some cases even we can’t win,” roll over the screen, a deep male voice tells viewers to call the law firm of Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman.
“But remember, you need to really be injured,” the announcer says.
After the spoof ad became a sensation — even getting a mention in the New York Times — the producer licensed it and the rights to Aroaz’s image to several other law firms around the country without her knowledge, she says in court papers. Since then, the actress alleges, Levinson Trachtenberg Group also got in on the act, selling the commercial licensing rights and rights to her image to several other U.S. law firms — some of which used her images to create massive billboards advertising their services, according to her lawsuit.
The producer cut deals with law firms in New Mexico, Washington, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Kansas, South Carolina and Colorado, and earned $250,000 off her work without compensating her, the lawsuit charges.
The Levinson Trachtenberg Group paid her an additional $1,500 in 2012 when she confronted them about an ad using her image on a billboard in Arizona, Aroaz says. She later discovered that the law firm had paid the producer $20,000 for the licensing rights, her suit says.
Aroaz is suing the producers and the law firms that used the commercial; she is asking for compensation of close to $1 million. None of the parties involved in the lawsuit returned calls for comment.
The actress might actually have a case. Many people don’t know
that New York will, in limited
circumstances, allow recovery even if you didn't have a written or
signed agreement.
Why is she suing for so much?
DeleteCuz...
Deletewhyyy......
Deletehttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-clerk-issues-more-than-250-marriage-licenses-to-samesex-couples-20140304,0,3623386.story
ReplyDeleteIn Cook County, Illinois, same-sex marriage licenses were distributed. 258 same-sex couples received from David Orr, the clerk, a contract of marriage, officially allowing the two individuals to become a couple.
Were out-of-state same-sex couples allowed to apply for marriage licenses as well?
Delete"[Couples] from Indiana,... Colorado... Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Texas and South Carolina..." (Chicago Tribune) applied for licenses as well.
DeleteCarbolic smoke ball company manufactured a carbolic smoke ball. The company offered a reward to anyone who would use the ball as directed and contracted influenza or other diseases. When one man bought the product and contracted influenza, but was not rewarded for this. He then sued the company for breach of contract.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/carlill-carbolic-smoke-ball.html
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/eu-wide-contract-law-receives-strong-approval/5040162.article
ReplyDeleteThis is about civil rather than common law .The City of London would lose out to the US if the law became a default for cross-border contracts across the EU. The European Commission vice-president and justice commissioner, said the law will cut transaction costs for small businesses while giving Europe’s 507 million consumers greater choice at cheaper prices when shopping across the border. Also under a propose law European have the choice to sale law for cross-border contracts when offering goods across the EU.
1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/sc-cons-0801-housing-counsel-20130802,0,4317244.column
ReplyDeleteThis person was 23 years old when he decided to buy a home in California. He signed a contract without reading through contract first. The paragraph was boiler plate an he didn't want create a scene.
Why didn't he want to create a scene? He's basically already doing so by not taking the time to read a contract that is inescapable. And in boiler plate, he should have known that the contract hasn't changed a bit. He should be more careful about making hasty agreements on paper.
Deletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/town-of-chevy-chase-hires-law-firm-to-fight-purple-line/2014/02/21/3c87b492-9a98-11e3-80ac-63a8ba7f7942_story.html
ReplyDeleteThe Town of Chevy Chase Council voted to spend 350 grand to provide advice and government to Washington to fight against Maryland's. The latter plans to build a light-rail Purple line. This Purple line will stretch over 16 miles between Bethesda and New Carrollton. The project will require more than $2 billion in construction aid.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2014/02/second-raiderette-joins-wage-and-hour-lawsuit.html
ReplyDeleteWe recently went over the story of Lacy T., a Raiderette who is suing the Oakland Raiders Club for violation of California labor laws. Well, the lawsuit is picking up steam as a second Raiderette joined the suit.
Twenty-nine-year-old Sarah G. (last names aren't disclosed for safety reasons) spent four seasons with the Raiders as a cheerleader but joined the lawsuit, claiming their contract with the Club was rife with illegal provisions.
For all you employment attorneys out there, check out this laundry list of alleged violations:
Minimum wage and overtime. According to the Raiderettes' suit, their contract calls for $125 per home game, or $1,250 per season. On paper, that looks fine and dandy. The problem, they say, is that they work nine hours on each game day, must attend two to three rehearsals per week, and are also required to attend 10 charity events per season, reports San Francisco's KTVU-TV. If you count those unpaid hours that amounts to $5 an hour, falling far below California's minimum wage, which is flirting with the idea of becoming the highest of any U.S. state.
Withholding pay. The cheerleaders claim they get paid at the end of the season. California law requires compensating workers at least twice a month but creates an exemption for creative professionals. Still, creative professionals must typically be paid at least once a month, so the team could potentially lose on this front.
Business expenses. Raiderettes are also contractually required to foot their own travel expenses, which is usually a no-no under federal law. They also have to pay out-of-pocket for accessories such as tights, false eyelashes and a yoga mat, and also pay for a pricey team-selected hairstylist. The cost and maintenance of uniforms are considered business expenses under California law and must be reimbursed by employers. Unfortunately for the Raiderettes, the accessories named in the suit might not be sufficiently distinctive in design and color to count as uniforms.
Wage deductions. The Raiderettes' suit alleges the Club unlawfully deducts from their wages by imposing so-called "fines" of $10 or more for rule infractions such as failing to bring the right pom-poms to rehearsals.
Lacy T. is seeking to make the lawsuit a class action on behalf of all Raiderettes who have cheered since 2010, and seeks an injunction against the Club's policies, and backpay, among other monetary penalties, reports KTVU.
A case management conference is slated for March 25 in Alameda, so stay tuned.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2013/08/pilot-flying-j-fuel-rebate-settlement-what-will-customers-get.html#more
ReplyDeleteA Pilot Flying J settlement related to the company's fuel-rebate scandal has received preliminary approval from a court. The proposed agreement would give trucking firms more than $40 million, and their attorneys another $14 million, The Plain Dealer of Cleveland reports.
Pilot Flying J, the country's biggest truck-stop chain, designed the settlement after being slapped with about 20 lawsuits -- filed by truckers and trucking companies -- related to fuel-rebate shortages that came to light after raids by FBI and IRS agents.
Here's what affected customers can expect from the settlement offer:
Class members will have their accounts audited from January 1, 2005, through July 15, 2013, at no cost to determine how much they are owed in unpaid rebates and discounts.
Each class member then will be paid 100 percent of the amount owed, plus 6 percent interest.
A court-appointed Independent Accountant will check the accuracy of Pilot Flying J's calculations.
Class members who disagree with Pilot Flying J's audit of their account may challenge that result through the Independent Accountant or the court.
Opt-Out?
For some class actions, members must opt-in to the class. In this case, however, eligible Pilot Flying J customers were automatically members of the class -- they didn't have to do anything to join the class, according to the settlement letter.
Customers who don't want to be roped into the settlement must opt-out of the class. When you opt out of a class, you may then pursue your own remedies outside of the class in a separate lawsuit.
The upside of going it alone is that you can pursue additional damages not included in the settlement. The major downside is time and cost. By contrast, class members don't have to hire a lawyer to receive any payment owed.
Another option for Pilot Flying J customers who don't like the settlement is to remain in the class action, but to tell the Arkansas court why they disagree with the settlement and ask the court not to approve it.
A fairness hearing, which could lead to final approval, is scheduled for November 25. Meantime, members of the eligible class of Pilot Flying J customers have until October 15 to opt-out of the class or to express their grievances to the court.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/actress-files-1-million-breach-contract-lawsuit-article-1.1366762
ReplyDelete(finishing at home)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI need to change my article because I didn't see how Tyler had the same one I picked.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/world/europe/cruise-lines-use-law-and-contracts-to-limit-liability.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteItalian consumer and environmental group, Codacons, has announced that it is preparing a class-action lawsuit and that over 70 passengers who were on board the ship that ran aground late Friday off the Tuscany coast have already signed as plaintiffs. Anyone who is trying to sue Costa Concodia’s corporate parent, Carnival Cruise Lines, they will find that the company is protected by international law and by a carefully worded contract that passengers accept when they buy their tickets.
the company blames this on the ship’s captain, Francesco Schettino, calling the accident “human error” and saying that the captain diverted the ship from its authorized route. The company, based in Miami, did not respond to requests for comment for this article. For cruises that do not involve a United States port, the contract states, any litigation must be brought in Genoa, Italy, and be governed by Italian law.
Deletehttp://www.newser.com/story/5654/cheating-hubby-sues-telltale-florist.html
ReplyDeleteA man is suing a florist for $1 million dollars for letting his wife in on a secret. That He had a girlfriend. He accuses 1-800-flowers.com of failing to keep a purchase for his paramour private. Also for upping the price tag of his divorce. The company says it can't take responsibility "for an individual's personal conduct,".
Is their proof that they would keep his purchase a secret
DeleteIn this article a model that was with Justin Bieber on the night he was arrested in Miami is suing the NY Daily News and claiming the paper lied about her "long criminal record." She also filed a defamation suit against the paper today ... and in the docs she says the Daily News "maliciously and intentionally" printed a story detailing 5 previous arrests, including one for misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon.
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/03/10/justin-bieber-chantel-jeffries-defamation-lawsuit-ny-daily-news/#ixzz2vaDZVDau
http://www.millsandmills.ca/blog/2014/01/interpreting-a-marriage-contract---whats-fair-isnt-always-appropriate.shtml
ReplyDeleteIn this article its a about The trial judge found that the marriage contract was ambiguous because it did not explicitly deal with the increase in value of assets. To resolve this ambiguity, the trial judge "looked at what she considered to be the overall objective intention of the parties, and concluded that the "objective intention at the time was to treat each other fairly. The trial judge used this intention to guide her interpretation of the agreement.
http://www.newser.com/story/5654/cheating-hubby-sues-telltale-florist.html
ReplyDeleteA man is suing a florist for $1 million dollars for letting his wife in on a secret. That He had a girlfriend. He accuses 1-800-flowers.com of failing to keep a purchase for his paramour private. Also for upping the price tag of his divorce. The company says it can't take responsibility "for an individual's personal conduct,".
Reply