The title of case is Decision on Damages. The case involves a contract issue. It was decided in Supreme Court- State of New York Commercial Division Trial Term, Part 44 Suffolk County, and entered in July 13, 2017. Theresa Federico who is plaintiff brings the action against defendants Anthony Brancatob and Joseph Brancatob who the action are brought. The plaintiff and defendants are in the same family. The family has a commercial printing business named Challenge Graphics Services, Inc. ("Challenge Graphics"). Both plaintiff and defendant are the shareholders of the business. They signed an agreement when they entered the organization called "Shareholders Agreement" which contained two clauses that the plaintiff thought she was damaged. One …show more content…
The plaintiff’s expert counted the damage for three periods that began from the date when the plaintiff was removed as a signatory on Challenge Graphics' checking account, to the date when the plaintiff’s expert reported, the date when the plaintiff retired at the age of 67, the predicted date when the plaintiff dead at the age of 85.7. The defendants' expert counted the plaintiff's damages for two periods that began from the date when the plaintiff's salary was deducted from $100,100 a year to $10,000 a year to the date when the Shareholders Agreement would have been terminated but for the temporary restraining order, and to the date when the employment was actually terminated. The court took the time from June 4, 2012, when the plaintiff’s salary was deducted to September 8, 2014 when the plaintiff’s employment was terminated. The court calculated that any benefits the company would give plus her original salary is $226,370. Then, minus her actual received salary of $23,111 is 203,259 was lost. In addition, plus the commissions which the plaintiff would earned $39,696 and bonuses of $42,911; also, Challenge Graphics would have made payments of $14,828 for her mobile issues and that Challenge Graphics would have made payments in the amount of $1,537 for the preparation of her taxes. To sum up, the court found that the plaintiff's damages can be
Norris- the plaintiff had worked decedent's farm, worked the soil, and harvested and marketed the produce. Plaintiff, working primarily without the decedent's aid, and drove the produce to various markets. She handled all finances and deposited them in the couple's joint banking account. Finally, the evidence showed that the decedent, an alcoholic, depended almost entirely on plaintiff's work in the produce business and as well her care of him while he was ill.
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
In my opinion, if the jury in this case subtracted the contractual claims against the profits, they would have arrived at different damage/entitlement amounts. My guess is Main Line would have been entitled to much less than what was awarded in this case.
Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions.
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
"Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26, ET AL. v. Pico, By His Next
al., Appellants v. City of New York et al. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 1998. Web. 6 May 2014.
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
?Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664.? FindLaw for Legal
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tyco International LTD. No. 06 CV 2942. United States District Court, Southern District of New York. 17 April 2006.
“The Plaintiff demanded of Defendants that said items be paid for in full on numerous occasions including: at or immediately following the time of providing the various items; within the 30 day period following the
“A breach of contract is committed when a party without lawful excuse fails or refuses to perform what is due from him under the contract, or performs defectively or anticipates himself from performing.” The laws around breach of contract have often been criticized for their unfair results this may be because the law does not aim to punish the defendant to instead aim for restoration for the claimant. The inadequacy of compensation for breach of contract is a widely recognized problem. It seems that there are few cases where the claimant is able to claim their full damages generally they are given a nominal sum that seems almost irrelevant to the claim for damages it is only on rare occasions where the claimant is completely restored. It has been argued that unless the damages are adequately remedies the remedy is “ ...a hollow one stripped of all practical force and void of content.” There is much difficulty in determining how to award damages and this has often led to unfairness.When recovering damages for breach of contract, there are generally three types of interest that the courts consider in order to find the most just result for the claimant. These three interests are: Expectation interest, Restitution interest and reliance interest. Expectation interest is the most common of the three and is used even though it is often criticized for creating results that are not relative to the breach. This essay will reflect upon these three types of interest in order to prove that damages for breach of contract do not always create a fair result. This is because the law in this area is inconsistent, especially in relationship to restitution interest that appears to be more of an exception to a rule rather than a gateway to re...
The plaintiff after making payment of Rs.2,50,000/- requested to the defendant to supply labours as per the agreement. The defendant gave assurance to supply the labours in terms of the agreement, but did not supply. The defendant failed to supply the labours in terms of the agreement, due to which the plaintiff has suffered heavy loss. Thereafter, the defendant started to avoid the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff contacted the defendant and requested him to repay Rs.2,50,000/-. The defendant agreed to repay Rs.2,50,000/- till the festival of 'Gudipadwa' of the year 2010. The plaintiff waited till the festival of 'Gudipadwa' of the year 2010, but the defendant did not repay Rs.2,50,000/- to him. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant and thereby demanded Rs. 2,50,000/-. The defendant has received the said legal notice but he did not comply with the notice. The plaintiff again contacted the defendant on 07/06/2010 and requested him to repay the above amount, but he flatly refused. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and prayed to decree the same with
Nissan Motor Co. would be concerned about the use of the two domain names being used by Nissan Computer Corp for several reasons. Firstly, as the Web has become a major marketing tool, customers and potential customers of Nissan Motor Co. might have difficulties finding their information due to the two domain names currently owned by Nissan Computer Corp. Ultimately this could result in the company losing profits if customers are not able to access their website. Another concern would be in regards to the names of the companies and possible confusion of these names by customers. Evidently, persons could presume that there is a connection between these two companies especially taking into consideration the fact that Nissan Motor Co. started marketing cars in the US with the name Nissan in the late 1980s. Following this, in 1991, Nissan Computer Corp was formed with two domains names being acquired Nissan.com and Nissan.net in 1994 and 1996 respectively.