This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
A case against an alarm company in Connecticut dealt with the allegation of fraud. The issue of fraud can be closely analogous to that of gross negligence so the case is relevant for discussion.
In a recent case in Indiana, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the alarm company in essence claiming that his exposure to the sound of the alarm caused permanent damage to his ability to hear.
The police officers and the plaintiff business owner responded to a burglary alarm at the plaintiff’s business. During the incident, the plaintiff business owner was shot by one of the responding officers.
A case recently decided by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire — although not an alarm company case — relied heavily on law created in cases involving alarm companies.
When a contract is reduced to writing, the parties’ intention is determined from the writing alone, if possible. The court then pointed out that the plaintiffs relied on the case of H.S. Perlin Co. versus Morse Signal Devices of San Diego, as a case in which a plaintiff’s recovery was limited by a liquidated damages provision.
What makes a company successful? Vision, patience, and the adherence to a good business plan. Most important, there also must be an excellent management team.
During the court case, the defendant requested clarification from the Department of Labor (DOL), specifically requesting the views of what work was “covered” by the statute and therefore entitled to the payment of prevailing wages and what work was not.
The court, indicated that under New York’s Economic Loss Doctrine, a party to a contract that suffered economic loss only (not personal injury) was, in most cases, limited to recovery pursuant to a claim for breach of contract and could not recover economic or consequential damages in tort.
An alarm company entered into an agreement to install a security system at a store and also agreed to provide a “central station signal receiving and notification service.”
The defendant alarm company had a clause in its contract giving “either party” the right to have “an action or dispute” resolved by binding arbitration before an arbitrator instead of a judge in court. The plaintiff filed an action in small claims court for damages for breach of contract, breach of warranty and fraud. The defendant alarm company made a motion to dismiss the action and to compel arbitration.
The question of whether or not an individual is an employee or independent contractor comes up frequently and the principles for making such determination are worth discussion.