Commercial Contract

commercial contract/general business

Maker of plant-based meat product sues defendant, which originally had contracted to be a manufacturing facility for plaintiff, and after the termination of that agreement began marketing its own plant-based meat product. Plaintiff sued defendant for violation of trade secrets act, breach of contract and fraud, arising from the dissolution of their business relationship by which unfair competition and fraud, which defendant denied. Plaintiff alleged health and safety issues with defendant’s manufacturing facilities, and alleged that defendant improperly developed its own product based upon information it obtained from plaintiff.

Plaintiff, the scion of extremely wealthy family, invested in a start-up company making artificial reefs with an individual with whom he had become friendly during surfing holidays. Plaintiff alleges that he was defrauded by defendant, who misrepresented the nature of the investment. Defendant claims that he did not make any material misrepresentations and that Plaintiff was aware of the true facts at all times.

Plaintiff sued his son and daughter-in-law for the return of hundreds of thousands of dollars of his savings which he gave to them for the establishment of a medical clinic that failed. Plaintiff claimed that defendants had made an oral promise that in return for the money, they would support him and let him live in their home for the rest of their lives.

County sued national law firm for declaration that it did not owe legal fees to defend county employee because law firm had failed to follow required statutory procedures for being retained as counsel for the employee.

Brother sued brother co-owner of large business, claiming mismanagement and fraud and seeking dissolution of business.

Plaintiffs had contracted with defendant to make custom cupboards for their home. Plaintiff claimed that the work on the cabinets was substandard and sued defendant for the cost of replacing them plus the year-long period of time they were allegedly displaced from their home because of the lack of cabinets. Defendant claimed that their work was good and that plaintiffs were exaggerating their damages.

Trucking company plaintiff alleged that defendant oil-supplier had mislabeled an oil drum, causing it to use the wrong type of oil in its trucks, causing the trucks to break and become unusable. Defendant claimed that there was no causal connection between the mislabeling and the damage and that plaintiff could not prove that it had used the oil as alleged.

Plaintiffs were parents of a student admitted to defendant University under the Varsity Blues admissions scandal. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant committed fraud by leading them to believe that it was proper for applicants to pay large sums of money as donations to the university in consideration for admissions.

Plaintiff entered into agreement for defendant to purchase its entire operation. Immediately before the scheduled closing, defendant had announced that it would not complete the transaction and plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Plaintiff had a large part of the market in its industry, and the sale would have had a significant impact.

World champion boxer sued his former co-managers for breach of contract and fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that the co-managers had acted against his interest at the instigation of his agent. Plaintiff later added as a defendant an international law firm which had also represented him as a co-defendant.

Plaintiff had an internet retail business with defendant which generated large sales that should have resulted in plaintiff being paid commissions. Defendant withheld commissions. Settlement reached based on defendant’s agreement to make installment payments which, if not made timely, could be collected directly by plaintiff.

Plaintiff sues her sister for control of real-estate holding company created by their father, giving rise to claims of fraud and document forgery.

Dispute between two large insurance brokers over payment of so-called bonus commissions received by insurance brokerage companies. It was significant because of the potential effect of the case on all broker commission agreements with insurance companies nationwide.