DOCSLIB.ORG

Lesser Known Breach of Contract Defenses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lesser Known Breach of Contract Defenses LESSER KNOWN BREACH OF CONTRACT DEFENSES Jack A. Walters, III Cooper & Scully, P.C. Founders Square 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 712-9500 (214) 712-9540 fax www.cooperscully.com [email protected] 3rd Annual Construction Symposium January 25, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND ON CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS..................................................1 A. Contract Documents...............................................................................................1 B. Checklist of Issues Covered in a Contract..............................................................1 C. Definitions..............................................................................................................2 III. CONTRACT DEFENSES...................................................................................................3 A. Limitations (Statute of Limitations & Statute of Repose)......................................3 B. Standing/Privity......................................................................................................5 C. Failure of consideration / Lack of consideration....................................................6 D. Mistake 7 E. Ratification.............................................................................................................8 F. Waiver 9 G. Plaintiff's Prior Material Breach.............................................................................9 H. Estoppel by contract & Quasi-estoppel ................................................................10 I. Mitigation of damages..........................................................................................11 J. Repudiation ..........................................................................................................11 K. Revocation............................................................................................................11 L. Lack of capacity ...................................................................................................11 M. Fraud 13 N. Modification.........................................................................................................13 O. Failure to perform conditions precedent...............................................................14 P. Impossibility of performance ...............................................................................14 Q. Limitatition-of-liability provisions.......................................................................15 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES 1464-Eight, Ltd. v. Joppich, 154 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2004)......................................................................................................7 46933, Inc, v. Z&B Enters., 899 S.W.2d 800 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1995, writ denied) .......................................................3 A.L.G Enters v. Huffman, 660 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983), aff'd, 672 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1984).................................................................................................................................8 ANCO Ins. Servs. v. Romero, 27 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) ........................................................5 Adkins Servs. v. Tisdale Co., 56 S.W.3d 842 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.) ..............................................................6 Affright, Inc, v, Elledge, 515 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1974)....................................................................................................15 Alamo Clay Prods, v. Gunn Tile Co., 597 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ..........................................15 American Garment Props., Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis-El Paso, L.L.C., 155 S.W.3d 431 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.)...............................................................13 Antwine v. Reed, 199 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. 1947)....................................................................................................11 Arthur's Garage, Inc, v. Racal-Chubb Sec. Sys., 997 S.W.2d 803 (Tex.App. —Dallas 1999, no pet.)................................................................15 Askey v. Williams, 11 S.W. 1101 (Tex. 1889)........................................................................................................12 Atlantic Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Butler, 137 S.W.3d 199 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied)........................................8 Atomic Fuel Extraction Corp, v. Estate of Slick, 386 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.App. —San Antonio 1964), writ ref'd. n.r.e., 403 S.W.2d 784 (Tex.1965)............................................................................................................14 Austin Hill Country Rlty., Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. 1997)....................................................................................................11 B.D. Holt Co. v. OCE, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) ..................................................7 ii Bank One v. Stewart, 967 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) .....................................9 Barker v. Eckman, __ S.W.3d. __ (Tex. 2006).........................................................................................................3 Barrera v. Hondo Creek Cattle Co., 132 S.W.3d 544 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.)......................................................5 Belew v. Rector, 202 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.App.—Eastland 2006, no pet.) ...............................................................7 Bencon Mgmt, & Gen. Contracting, Inc, v. Boyer, Inc., 178 S.W.3d 198 (Tex.App. —Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet) ..........................................14 Board of Regents v. Yarbrough, 470 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.App.—Waco 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.).......................................................13 Boland v. Mundaca Inv., 978 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) ..................................................................7 Bolle, Inc. v. American Greetings Corp., 109 S.W.3d 827 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied) ............................................................8 Bookout v. Bookout, 165 S.W.3d 904 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.) ............................................................5 Bowles v. Fickas, 167 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. 1943)....................................................................................................11 Breaux v. Allied Bank, 699 S.W.2d 599 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) .......................12, 13 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Burner, 964 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.)....................................................10 Brown-McKee, Inc. v. Western Beef, Inc., 538 S.W.2d 840 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.)..................................................8 Cal-Tex Lumber Co. v. Owens Handle Co., 989 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1999, no pet.) ....................................................................9 Carson Energy, Inc. v. Riverway Bank, 100 S.W.3d 591 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) .....................................................6 Centex Corp. v. Dalton, 840 S.W.2d 952 (Tex.1992).....................................................................................................14 Champlin Oil & Ref. Co. v. Chastain, 403 S.W.2d 376 (Tex. 1965)......................................................................................................8 iii Cherry v. McCall, 138 S.W.3d 35 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2004, pet. denied) ....................................................8 Cigna Ins. Co. v. Rubalcada, 960 S.W.2d 408 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) ..............................................7 City of Corpus Christi v. Taylor, 126 S.W.3d 712 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2004, pet. dism'd) ...............................................3 Commercial Credit Corp. v. Taylor, 448 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1969, no writ)....................................................................9 Conquest Drilling Fluids, Inc. v. Tri-Flo Intl, 137 S.W.3d 299 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.).............................................................6 Consolidated Eng'g v. Southern Steel, 699 S.W.2d 188 (Tex. 1985)......................................................................................................9 Cook Composites, Inc. v. Westlake Styrene Corp., 15 S.W.3d 124 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. dism'd).......................................11 Copeland v. Alsobrook, 3 S.W.3d 598 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) ......................................................5 Cowman v. Allen Monuments, Inc., 500 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1973, no writ) ...........................................................10 D.E.W., Inc. v. Depco Forms, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1992, no writ) ........................................................3 Dairyland Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roman, 498 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1973)..............................................................................................11, 12 Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Dolan, 120 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.Comm'n App. 1938, judgm't adopted)..................................................12 Davis v. Grammer, 750 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1988)......................................................................................................8 de Monet v. PERA, 877 S.W.2d 352 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1994,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Drafting and Enforcing Complex Indemnification Provisions
    Drafting And Enforcing Complex Indemnification Provisions D. Hull D. Hull Youngblood, Jr. and Peter N. Flocos Youngblood, Jr. is a partner in the Forget about copy and paste. The best indem­ Austin, Texas office nification provisions start with the details of of K&L Gates LLP. Mr. Youngblood the transaction. focuses his practice on government contracting, the security industry and com plex THE PURPOSE of this article is to assist transactional financial transactions, and regularly represents and litigation attorneys in the negotiation and drafting clients in a wide array of local, state, and federal of customized, and therefore more effective, indemnifi- contracting transactions and disputes. He can be cation provisions in a wide range of situations, and also reached at [email protected]. to spot certain litigation issues that may arise out of in- demnification provisions. This article will identify issues Peter N. and strategies and suggested language that can act as a Flocos starting point to protect the client’s interests in the area is a partner in the of indemnification in complex transactions and litigation. New York City Readers should note that this article is for informational office of K&L Gates purposes, does not contain or convey legal advice, and LLP. Mr. Flocos, may or may not reflect the views of the authors’ firm or who began his any particular client or affiliate of that firm. The infor- legal career as mation herein should not be used or relied upon in regard a transactional lawyer and then to any particular facts or circumstances without first con- became a litigator, sulting a lawyer.
    [Show full text]
  • In Dispute 30:2 Contract Formation
    CHAPTER 30 CONTRACTS Introductory Note A. CONTRACT FORMATION 30:1 Contract Formation ― In Dispute 30:2 Contract Formation ― Need Not Be in Writing 30:3 Contract Formation ― Offer 30:4 Contract Formation ― Revocation of Offer 30:5 Contract Formation ― Counteroffer 30:6 Contract Formation ― Acceptance 30:7 Contract Formation ― Consideration 30:8 Contract Formation ― Modification 30:9 Contract Formation ― Third-Party Beneficiary B. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE 30:10 Contract Performance — Breach of Contract — Elements of Liability 30:11 Contract Performance — Breach of Contract Defined 30:12 Contract Performance — Substantial Performance 30:13 Contract Performance — Anticipatory Breach 30:14 Contract Performance — Time of Performance 30:15 Contract Performance — Conditions Precedent 30:16 Contract Performance — Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing — Non-Insurance Contract 30:17 Contract Performance — Assignment C. DEFENSES Introductory Note 30:18 Defense — Fraud in the Inducement 30:19 Defense — Undue Influence 30:20 Defense — Duress 30:21 Defense — Minority 30:22 Defense — Mental Incapacity 30:23 Defense — Impossibility of Performance 30:24 Defense — Inducing a Breach by Words or Conduct 30:25 Defense — Waiver 30:26 Defense — Statute of Limitations 30:27 Defense — Cancellation by Agreement 30:28 Defense — Accord and Satisfaction (Later Contract) 30:29 Defense — Novation D. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION Introductory Note 30:30 Contract Interpretation — Disputed Term 30:31 Contract Interpretation — Parties’ Intent 30:32 Contract Interpretation —
    [Show full text]
  • Who Needs That Recital of Consideration?
    DraftingDrafting aa newnew dayday Who needs that ‘recital of consideration’? By Kenneth A. Adams t’s hardly a shocking notion that are hereby acknowledged, the parties Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts any given contract could contain hereto covenant and agree as follows. 150 (2d. ed. 1998).) It follows that Ione or more provisions that reflect Recitals of consideration raise a using instead the vague language of a an inaccurate or outdated view of con- number of issues of legal usage. For traditional recital of consideration tract law. What’s more noteworthy is example, NOW, THEREFORE is archa- would be equally ineffective. the fact one such provision — the tra- ic, while in consideration of the premises Similarly, a false recital of consider- ditional recital of consideration — is simply an obscure way of saying ation cannot create consideration appears in most corporate agreements. “therefore” and is superfluous given where there was none. If, in the con- In this article, I explain why that the preceding “therefore.” And refer- tract between Acme and Roe, Acme traditional recital of consideration ences to the value or sufficiency of recites falsely that the payment to Roe fails to serve its intended purpose and consideration are outdated: With the was in consideration of future services why omitting it could only improve a rise of the “bargain test of considera- and Acme subsequently refuses to pay contract. tion” reflected in the Restatement (Sec- the bonus, Acme should prevail in any The ostensible function of a recital ond) of Contracts, the focus of judges action brought by Roe if it succeeds in of consideration is to render enforce- has shifted from the substance of the proving that the recital was false.
    [Show full text]
  • SAMPLE NOTES from OUR LLB CORE GUIDE: Contract Law Privity Chapter
    SAMPLE NOTES FROM OUR LLB CORE GUIDE: Contract Law Privity chapter LLB Answered is a comprehensive, first-class set of exam-focused study notes for the Undergraduate Law Degree. This is a sample from one of our Core Guides. We also offer dedicated Case Books. Please visit lawanswered.com if you wish to purchase a copy. Notes for the LPC are also available via lawanswered.com. This chapter is provided by way of sample, for marketing purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. No warranties as to its contents are provided. All rights reserved. Copyright © Answered Ltd. PRIVITY KEY CONCEPTS 5 DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY Under the common law: A third party cannot… enforce , be liable for, or acquire rights under … a contract to which he is not a party. AVOIDING THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY The main common law exceptions are: AGENCY RELATIONSHIPS ASSIGNMENT TRUSTS JUDICIAL INTERVENTION The main statutory exception is: CONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) ACT 1999 44 PRIVITY WHAT IS PRIVITY? “The doctrine of privity means that a contract cannot, as a general rule, confer PRIVITY rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person except the parties to it.” Treitel, The Law of Contract. Under the doctrine of privity: ACQUIRE RIGHTS UNDER A third party cannot BE LIABLE FOR a contract to which he is not a party. ENFORCE NOTE: the doctrine is closely connected to the principle that consideration must move from the promisee (see Consideration chapter). The leading cases on the classic doctrine are Price v Easton, Tweddle v Atkinson and Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridges & Co Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • “Supply for Consideration”? Presented by Tony Van Der Westhuysen BA; LLB; H
    12/05/2017 Just what is a “Supply for consideration”? Presented by Tony van der Westhuysen BA; LLB; H. Dip Tax Law; MBA; Cert IV TAA 1 12/05/2017 Legislative Background Section 9-5 You make a taxable supply if: (a) you make the supply for consideration; and (b) the supply is made in the course or furtherance of an enterprise that you carry on; and (c) the supply is connected with the indirect tax zone; and (d) you are registered, or required to be registered. However, the supply is not a taxable supply to the extent that it is GST- free or input taxed. 2 12/05/2017 Section 9-10 Meaning of ‘supply’ • A supply of goods or services; • The provision of advice or information; • A grant, assignment or surrender of real property; • The creation, grant, transfer, assignment or surrender of any right; • Includes financial supplies Continued…. Section 9-10 (continued) Includes • an entry into an obligation or • release from an obligation • to do anything • to refrain from an act • to tolerate an act or situation 3 12/05/2017 What is not a supply? “Supply” does not include a supply of money, unless the money is provided as consideration for a supply that is a supply of money. (s9-10(4)) Section 9-15 Meaning of ‘consideration’ “Consideration” Includes: • any payment or any act or forbearance • in connection with, • in response to or • for the inducement of • a supply of anything 4 12/05/2017 Case law • Reliance Carpet Company Pty Ltd v FCT AAT (yes) FFC (no) HC (yes) • COT v Qantas Airways Ltd AAT (yes) FFC (no) HC (yes) GSTR 2006/9 The meaning of “Supply” 5 12/05/2017 The Propositions Sixteen in total Proposition 4 • A transaction may involve two or more supplies • Non-monetary consideration • GST-inclusive market value 12 6 12/05/2017 Proposition 5 • To 'make a supply' an entity must do something • The ordinary meaning of 'supply' requires a positive act by the supplier • Compulsory acquisitions? Re Hornsby Shire Council v.
    [Show full text]
  • Contracts of Adhesion-Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract
    CONTRACTS OF ADHESION-SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT FREEDOM OF CONTRACT FRIEDRICH KESSLER With the development of a free enterprise system based on an un- heard of division of labor, capitalistic society needed a highly elastic legal institution to safeguard the exchange of goods and services on the market. Common law lawyers, responding to this social need, trans- formed "contract" from the clumsy institution that it was in the six- teenth century into a tool of almost unlimited usefulness and pliability. Contract thus became the indispensable instrument of the enterpriser, enabling him to go about his affairs in a rational way. Rational be- havior within the context of our culture is only possible if agreements will be respected. It requires that reasonable expectations created by promises receive the protection of the law or else we will suffer the fate of Montesquieu's Troglodytes, who perished because they did not ful- fill their promises. This idea permeates our whole law of contracts, the doctrines dealing with their formation, performance, impossibility and damages. Under a free enterprise system rationality of the law of contracts has still another aspect.1 To keep pace with the constant widening of the market the legal system has to place at the disposal of the members of the community an ever increasing number of typical business trans- actions and regulate their consequences. But the law cannot possibly anticipate the content of an infinite number of atypical transactions into which members of the community may need to enter. Society, therefore, has to give the parties freedom of contract; to accommodate the business community the ceremony necessary to vouch for the delib- erate nature of a transaction has to be reduced to the absolute minimum.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Thermal Fire-Extinguishing Agents
    NIST Technical Note 1440 Characteristics and Identification of Super- Effective Thermal Fire-Extinguishing Agents: Final Report, NGP Project 4C/1/890 William M. Pitts Jiann C. Yang Rodney A. Bryant Linda G. Blevins Marcia L. Huber NIST Technical Note 1440 Characteristics and Identification of Super- Effective Thermal Fire-Extinguishing Agents: Final Report, NGP Project 4C/1/890 William M. Pitts Jiann C. Yang Rodney A. Bryant Linda G. Blevins Building and Fire Research Laboratory Marcia L. Huber Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory June 2001 Issued July 2006 U.S. Department of Commerce Donald L. Evans, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Dr. Karen H. Brown, Acting Director Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1440 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1440, 138 pages (July 2006) CODEN: NSPUE2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................ iii LISTS OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Force Majeure and Common Law Defenses | a National Survey | Shook, Hardy & Bacon
    2020 — Force Majeure SHOOK SHB.COM and Common Law Defenses A National Survey APRIL 2020 — Force Majeure and Common Law Defenses A National Survey Contractual force majeure provisions allocate risk of nonperformance due to events beyond the parties’ control. The occurrence of a force majeure event is akin to an affirmative defense to one’s obligations. This survey identifies issues to consider in light of controlling state law. Then we summarize the relevant law of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2020 — Shook Force Majeure Amy Cho Thomas J. Partner Dammrich, II 312.704.7744 Partner Task Force [email protected] 312.704.7721 [email protected] Bill Martucci Lynn Murray Dave Schoenfeld Tom Sullivan Norma Bennett Partner Partner Partner Partner Of Counsel 202.639.5640 312.704.7766 312.704.7723 215.575.3130 713.546.5649 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] SHOOK SHB.COM Melissa Sonali Jeanne Janchar Kali Backer Erin Bolden Nott Davis Gunawardhana Of Counsel Associate Associate Of Counsel Of Counsel 816.559.2170 303.285.5303 312.704.7716 617.531.1673 202.639.5643 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] John Constance Bria Davis Erika Dirk Emily Pedersen Lischen Reeves Associate Associate Associate Associate Associate 816.559.2017 816.559.0397 312.704.7768 816.559.2662 816.559.2056 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Katelyn Romeo Jon Studer Ever Tápia Matt Williams Associate Associate Vergara Associate 215.575.3114 312.704.7736 Associate 415.544.1932 [email protected] [email protected] 816.559.2946 [email protected] [email protected] ATLANTA | BOSTON | CHICAGO | DENVER | HOUSTON | KANSAS CITY | LONDON | LOS ANGELES MIAMI | ORANGE COUNTY | PHILADELPHIA | SAN FRANCISCO | SEATTLE | TAMPA | WASHINGTON, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Capacitas': Contract Law and the Institutional
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Papers in Economics ‘CAPACITAS’: CONTRACT LAW AND THE INSTITUTIONAL PRECONDITIONS OF A MARKET ECONOMY Centre for Business Research, University Of Cambridge Working Paper No. 325 by Simon Deakin University of Cambridge Centre for Business Research Judge Business School Building Trumpington Street Cambridge CB2 1AG Email: [email protected] June 2006 This working paper forms part of the CBR Research Programme on Corporate Governance. Abstract Capacity may be defined as a status conferred by law for the purpose of empowering persons to participate in the operations of a market economy. This paper argues that because of the confining influence of the classical private law of the nineteenth century, we currently lack a convincing theory of the role of law in enhancing and protecting the substantive contractual capacity of market agents, a notion which resembles the economic concept of ‘capability’ as developed by Amartya Sen. Re-examining the legal notion of capacity from the perspective of Sen’s ‘capability approach’ is part of a process of understanding the preconditions for a sustainable market order under modern conditions. JEL Classification : K12, K31 Keywords : contract law, capacity, capability approach Acknowledgements This paper is based on the work of the ‘Capacitas’ project which was funded by the European Union’s Fifth Framework Programme, as part of a wider research network examining the politics of capabilities in Europe (‘Eurocap’). I am grateful to fellow project-members who took part in meetings in Nantes and Cambridge in 2003 and 2005 respectively and whose work I draw on here, in particular Wiebke Brose, Sandrine Godelain, Jean Hauser, Martin Hesselink, Alain Supiot and Aurora Vimercati.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Veterans Affairs VA Directive 0000 Washington, DC 20420 Transmittal Sheet November 14, 2018
    Department of Veterans Affairs VA Directive 0000 Washington, DC 20420 Transmittal Sheet November 14, 2018 DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 1. REASON FOR ISSUE: Directive 0000 is being reissued to update policy regarding VA Delegations Of Authority (DOA). 2. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS/MAJOR CHANGES: This revised directive announces changes in the responsible office from the Office of Information and Technology (OIT) to the Office of Enterprise Integration (OEI), establishes an Enterprise Delegation Control Officer within OEI, and clarifies roles and responsibilities of officials managing the Delegation of Authority program for the enterprise. 3. RESPONSIBLE OFFICE(S): The Office of Policy and Interagency Collaboration (008D3) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Enterprise integration (008). 4. RELATED HANDBOOK: None. 5. RESCISSION: VA Directive 0000, Delegations of Authority, dated September 9, 2009. CERTIFIED BY: BY THE DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS: /s/ /s/ Melissa S. Glynn, Ph.D. Melissa S. Glynn, Ph.D. Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary for Enterprise Integration for Enterprise Integration DISTRIBUTION: Electronic Only VA Directive 0000 November 14, 2018 This page is intentionally left blank. 2 November 14, 2018 VA Directive 0000 DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. This directive sets forth policies for issuing delegations of authority from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Chief of Staff, Assistant Secretaries, Under Secretaries, and Other Key Officials. Section 512(a) of title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), allows the Secretary to delegate, except as otherwise provided by law, the authority to act or render decisions with respect to all laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief June 29, 2016
    Amici curiae respectfully submit this brief pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-511 in support of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals’ application of the Economic Loss Rule. STATEMENT OF INTEREST Amici curiae are comprised of four national and three regional associations representing the interests of thousands of design professionals from across the country, including Maryland, who provide professional engineering, architecture, and land surveying services in the development of the built environment in which we live. The services provided by these design professionals include the preparation of plans and specifications for public infrastructure, commercial development, and residential projects, “allowing Americans to drink clean water, enjoy a healthy life, take advantage of new technologies, and travel safely and efficiently.”1 The American Council of Engineering Companies of Maryland (“ACEC-MD”) is a nonprofit association representing over 90 consulting engineering firms located throughout the state that serve the public and private sectors. Member firms employ over 6,500 employees and are responsible for the design of most of the area’s infrastructure, including environmental and building construction. Founded in 1957, the organization promotes the business interests of the consulting engineering profession in Maryland and the surrounding region. 1 About ACEC, http://www.acec.org/about/ (last visited June 29, 2016). Founded in 1968, the American Council of Engineering Companies of Virginia (“ACEC-VA”) is the largest engineering firm association in Virginia. It represents the business interests of more than 90 consulting engineering firms which employ more than 4,000 employees. ACEC-VA actively advocates on behalf of its membership, and is a leader in promoting industry excellence and professionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Contractual Capacity
    CONTRACTUAL CAPACITY Contractual Capacity: The minimum mental capacity the law requires to bind a party who enters into a contract. The law presumes that the following classes of persons lacked contractual capacity when they entered into a contract to bind them to a contract they wish to avoid: (1) persons who were minors; (2) persons who were mentally impaired, including those whose impairment was due to voluntarily consuming alcohol or drugs; (3) persons who were mentally incompetent, but had not been adjudged incompetent and were not under the care of a legal guardian. Unlike a void contract, which the law will not enforce, a voidable contract is enforceable unless the party with the right to avoid it elects to do so. Disaffirmance: A person with the option to avoid a contract due to lack of capacity may do so by manifesting, by words or actions, his intent not to be bound. Disaffirmance must be timely. Ch. 14: Contracts: Capacity and Legality - No. 1 Clarkson et al.’s Business Law (13th ed.) MINORITY Subject to certain exceptions, an unmarried legal minor (in most states, someone less than 18 years old) may avoid a contract that would bind him if he were an adult. Contracts entered into by young children and contracts for something the law permits only for adults (e.g., a contract to purchase cigarettes or alcohol) are generally void, rather than voidable. Right to Disaffirm: Generally speaking, a minor may disaffirm a contract at any time during minority or for a reasonable time after he comes of age. When a minor disaffirms a contract, he can recover all property that he has transferred as consideration – even if it was subsequently transferred to a third party.
    [Show full text]