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.

In the case, a motorcyclist collided into the driver side door of the deputy’s patrol car when the deputy opened it to exit the car to make contact with the motorist he had stopped for a traffic violation.

In a recent case before the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, the court had to decide whether to hold the plaintiff alarm company liable for the amount of the limitation of liability provision contained in the contract.

In a recent case before the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, the court had to decide whether to hold the plaintiff alarm company liable for the amount of the limitation of liability provision contained in the contract.