DOCSLIB.ORG

50 State* Survey of Legal Excusability Force Majeure, Commercial Impracticability, and Frustration of Purpose

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
50 State* Survey of Legal Excusability Force Majeure, Commercial Impracticability, and Frustration of Purpose 50 State* Survey of Legal Excusability Force Majeure, Commercial Impracticability, and Frustration of Purpose * Plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands Foreword The outbreak of COVID-19 has been one of the most disruptive events to the global economy in recent memory. Businesses across every sector of the economy are scrambling to determine the legal repercussions of government travel restrictions, labor shortages, supply chain interruptions, financing impacts, and market price fluctuations triggered by the pandemic. How can I possibly be expected to perform my maintenance contract if the government orders me to stay home? Am I still liable for liquidated damages if I don’t meet the contractual milestones in my construction schedule? Do I still have to pay my purchase orders for kitchen supplies and foodstuffs if the government has shut down all restaurants indefinitely? These, and other questions like it, loom large in the wake of the current pandemic. With this survey, we attempt to shed some light on the answers to these questions and educate readers about the history and status of what we call “legal excusability” in the United States, the District of Columbia, and the US Territories. When we say “legal excusability,” we specifically refer to situations where intervening events delay or outright prevent one party from performing its obligations under a contract. In American jurisprudence, the law of excusability is derived from three authorities—the language of contracts, the common law, and legislative provisions excusing performance. Attorneys from Seyfarth Shaw’s commercial litigation, construction, and government contracts practice groups have undertaken a comprehensive review of these concepts in every American jurisdiction, analyzed what we found, and summarized our findings in the pages below. While we certainly don’t claim to have all the answers to the difficult questions that businesses face during these trying times, our goal is to provide the legal building blocks to aid contractors that may have a viable claim of legal excusability. We hope you find it informative.1 Anthony LaPlaca Seyfarth Shaw LLP June 1, 2020 1 The follow ing individuals contributed to this survey: Anthony LaPlaca (Alaska, California, Colorado, Haw aii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, Washington); Kay Hazelw ood (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Utah); James Billings-Kang (Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, US Virgin Islands); Rob Lafayette (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming); Leah Rochw arg (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island); Michael Wagner (District of Columbia, Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico); Aliya Brow n (Iow a, South Dakota, South Carolina, Wisconsin); Jonathan Huie (Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia); Teddie Arnold (Delaw are, Virginia); and Roberto Terzoli (Puerto Rico, North Carolina). Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 50 State* Survey of Legal Excusability | i Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Alabama .............................................................................................................................. 5 Alaska................................................................................................................................. 7 Arizona...............................................................................................................................10 Arkansas ............................................................................................................................13 California ............................................................................................................................16 Colorado ............................................................................................................................19 Connecticut.........................................................................................................................21 Delaware ............................................................................................................................25 District of Columbia ..............................................................................................................28 Florida................................................................................................................................31 Georgia ..............................................................................................................................34 Hawaii................................................................................................................................37 Idaho .................................................................................................................................40 Illinois ................................................................................................................................44 Indiana ...............................................................................................................................47 Iowa...................................................................................................................................50 Kansas...............................................................................................................................53 Kentucky ............................................................................................................................57 Louisiana............................................................................................................................59 Maine.................................................................................................................................61 Maryland ............................................................................................................................65 Massachusetts ....................................................................................................................68 Michigan.............................................................................................................................72 Minnesota...........................................................................................................................75 Mississippi ..........................................................................................................................79 Missouri .............................................................................................................................83 Montana .............................................................................................................................87 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 50 State* Survey of Legal Excusability | iii Nebraska ............................................................................................................................91 Nevada ..............................................................................................................................94 New Hampshire ...................................................................................................................96 New Jersey ....................................................................................................................... 100 New Mexico ...................................................................................................................... 103 New York.......................................................................................................................... 105 North Carolina ................................................................................................................... 109 North Dakota..................................................................................................................... 112 Ohio................................................................................................................................. 115 Oklahoma ......................................................................................................................... 120 Oregon............................................................................................................................. 122 Pennsylvania..................................................................................................................... 125 Puerto Rico ....................................................................................................................... 129 Rhode Island..................................................................................................................... 132 South Carolina .................................................................................................................. 135 South Dakota .................................................................................................................... 138 Tennessee........................................................................................................................ 141 Texas............................................................................................................................... 144 Utah................................................................................................................................. 148 Vermont ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arbitration - Sure, but Only on Our Terms: Escape Clauses in Uninsured Motorist Policies - Schaefer V
    Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1993 Issue 1 Article 9 1993 Arbitration - Sure, but Only on Our Terms: Escape Clauses in Uninsured Motorist Policies - Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co. Steven R. Leppard Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Steven R. Leppard, Arbitration - Sure, but Only on Our Terms: Escape Clauses in Uninsured Motorist Policies - Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1993 J. Disp. Resol. (1993) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1993/iss1/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Leppard: Leppard: Arbitration - Sure, but Only on Our Terms: NOTES ARBITRATION? SURE, BUT ONLY ON OUR TERMS: ESCAPE CLAUSES IN UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICIES Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co.' I. INTRODUCTION Historically, the insurance industry has widely used arbitration to resolve disputes.2 Insurance companies have increasingly included "escape clauses" in their policies.' These clauses allow an insurance company to ignore an arbitrator's award and have a claim directly heard in a trial court if the award exceeds a pre-determined amount.' The Ohio Supreme Court in Schaefer v. Allstate Insurance Co. addressed this issue and decided that the escape clause was unenforceable due to public policy.' II. FACTS AND HOLDING On November 8, 1985, an automobile occupied by David and Jeanette Schaefer was involved in an accident with a car negligently driven by an uninsured motorist.' At the time of the accident, the Schaefers had an insurance policy with appellant Allstate Insurance Company that provided uninsured motorist coverage with limits at $100,000 per person and $300,000 per 7 occurrence.
    [Show full text]
  • Breakfast Seminar Series: Is Your Employment Contract Enforceable? What Would a Judge Say?
    Breakfast Seminar Series: Is Your Employment Contract Enforceable? What would a judge say? Jock Climie Kecia Podetz www.ehlaw.ca May 11, 2016 Overview ▫ The basics ▫ Key provisions in every contract ▫ Proper consideration ▫ Fixed term contract pitfalls ▫ Enforceable termination clauses ▫ Restrictive covenants 2 www.ehlaw.ca 1 The Basics 3 Forming the Contract ▫ Every employment relationship is governed by an employment contract ▫ How is an employment contract formed? ▫ Offer ▫ Acceptance ▫ Consideration ▫ Opportunity for independent legal advice 4 www.ehlaw.ca 2 Timing and Clarity ▫ A contract must be presented before employment commences ▫ All terms should be clear and unequivocal ▫ Ambiguities interpreted against the interest of the party who drafted the contract ▫ Interpretation most favorable to the employee will be used 5 Key Provisions –The Obvious Stuff ▫ Duration and form of the employment relationship ▫ Start date ▫ Probationary period ▫ Hours of work ▫ Compensation practices ▫ Salary ▫ Benefits ▫ Vacation 6 www.ehlaw.ca 3 Key Provisions –Employer Protect Thyself ▫ Protection of interests ▫ Confidentiality ▫ Non‐solicitation ▫ Non‐competition ▫ Termination ▫ Notice of termination/severance pay and benefits liability ▫ Resignation ▫ Successor employer/sale of business 7 Consideration 8 www.ehlaw.ca 4 What is Proper Consideration? ▫ Each party receives something of value, and each party gives something up in return ▫ Can come in many forms –value is widely defined ▫ Fact‐specific –no clear rule for appropriate consideration ▫ Who is the employee ▫ What is the position ▫ What are the circumstances ▫ What is a “fair exchange” 9 What Would a Judge Say? ▫ An employee signs a letter of offer which is silent on termination entitlements ▫ The letter indicates that an employment agreement will be forthcoming ▫ 9 months later, the employee signs the employment agreement contemplated by the letter of offer ▫ Termination clause = ESA only ▫ On termination, the employer provides only ESA notice 10 www.ehlaw.ca 5 Case Study – Holland v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Escape Clause Under the Succession Regulation and Other International Issues
    The escape clause under the Succession Regulation and other international issues Maria Grazia Antoci Lawyer in Florence, Italy UNIT 1 Summary and the notion of habitual residence - Part I Succession Regulation (SR): questions to be addressed What is an escape clause? Is there any autonomous field of application of such clause under the Succession Regulation? Summary Definition of habitual residence under the SR Scope of Escape Clause under the SR Scope of Escape clause under other instruments Comparison Conclusions Habitual residence (SR) To better understand the scope of escape clause we need to: recall the notion of habitual residence; compare the field of application of the habitual residence with the scope of the “escape clause”. Article 21.1 introduces the connecting factor of the Habitual Residence as general rule. “Unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation, the law applicable to the succession as a whole shall be the law of the State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death.” Habitual residence (SR) The provision of an uniform connecting factor in the Succession Regulation is a significant development in the process of harmonisation at European level. The adoption of a connecting factor which was close to the centre of interests of the deceased, thus satisfying the need for proximity, does facilitate the mobility of persons within the European area. The aim was to choose a criterion that was as free as possible from the substantive law of each State (unlike “domicile”) and that had an international origin. Habitual residence (SR) It responds to the need for integration and non-discrimination between individuals established in a Member State, whatever their nationality is.
    [Show full text]
  • DDS WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. NUTMEG LEASING, INC. (AC 34278) Robinson, Bear and Peters, Js
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** DDS WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. NUTMEG LEASING, INC. (AC 34278) Robinson, Bear and Peters, Js. Argued March 21Ðofficially released September 10, 2013 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Hon. John W. Moran, judge trial referee.) Linda L. Morkan, with whom, on the brief, was Christopher J.
    [Show full text]
  • Squeezing Subjectivity from the Doctrine of Unconscionability
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 53 Issue 2 Article 3 2005 Squeezing Subjectivity from the Doctrine of Unconscionability Paul Bennett Marrow Banks, Shapiro, Gettinger and Walldinger Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Contracts Commons, Courts Commons, and the Family Law Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Paul Bennett Marrow, Squeezing Subjectivity from the Doctrine of Unconscionability, 53 Clev. St. L. Rev. 187 (2005-2006) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SQUEEZING SUBJECTIVITY FROM THE DOCTRINE OF UNCONSCIONABILITY PAUL BENNETT MARROW1 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 187 II. RETHINKING THE ROLE OF UNCONSCIONABILITY IN THE COMMERCIAL ARENA .......................................................... 194 A. The Basic Premise ....................................................... 194 B. Reported Cases Where the Court has Legislated on an Ad Hoc Basis...................................................... 199 III. RETHINKING THE ROLE OF UNCONSCIONABILITY IN THE FAMILY LAW ARENA ........................................................... 206 A. Role of Regulatory Schemes in Defining Unconscionability.......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Drafting and Enforcing Termination Clauses in Commercial Contracts
    Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting and Enforcing Termination Clauses in Commercial Contracts Maximizing Recovery or Minimizing Loss When Contracts End Due to Breach, Insolvency, Milestone Failure, Expiration or Other Reason TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2016 1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific Today’s faculty features: Rebekah R. Conroy, Partner, Brown Moskowitz & Kallen, Summit, N.J. Timothy Murray, Partner, Murray Hogue & Lannis, Pittsburgh The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10. Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-961-8499 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again. Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.
    [Show full text]
  • An Escape for the Escape Clause Veto? Mira Davidovski
    Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 8 | Issue 2 Article 5 An Escape for the Escape Clause Veto? Mira Davidovski Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation Mira Davidovski, An Escape for the Escape Clause Veto?, 8 Md. J. Int'l L. 277 (1984). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol8/iss2/5 This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS AN ESCAPE FOR THE ESCAPE CLAUSE VETO? I. INTRODUCTION Since the Supreme Court in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadhal invalidated the unicameral legislative veto provision in the Im- migration and Nationality Act' as violative of Article I, section 1 and sec- tion 73 of the Constitution, the Constitutional soundness of nearly two hun- dred similar provisions in other legislation has become open to question. Appellate and lower courts have resolved the issue of such provisions' con- 4 stitutionality negatively in the context of six other legislative enactments, while Congress is returning to other techniques of post hoc legislative con- trol.5 The breadth of the Chadha decision, the small amount of case law 1. 103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983). Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion, with Justices Bren- nan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, and O'Connor joining to form the majority.
    [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]
  • Force Majeure Tracker
    Force majeure tracker April 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This guide has been prepared to address the substantial business and operational disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the unexpected nature of the outbreak, parties to commercial contracts may seek to invoke force majeure or similar legal concepts to excuse delay or non-performance. This guide gives a high-level comparative analysis of force majeure in 28 jurisdictions, together with alternative remedies that may apply depending on the governing law of the relevant contracts. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact our practitioners listed throughout the document. Asia Pacific EMEA The Americas 2 ASIA PACIFIC Jo Delaney Zhou Xi Roberta Chan Cynthia Tang Angela Ang Australia China Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong +61 2 8922 5467 +86 10 5949 6019 +852 2846 2492 +852 2846 1708 +852 2846 1795 jo.delaney zhouxi roberta.chan cynthia.tang angela.ang @bakermckenzie.com @fenxunlaw.com @bakermckenzie.com @bakermckenzie.com @bakermckenzie.com Andi Kadir Timur Sukirno Yoshiaki Muto Kherk Ying Chew Donemark Calimon Indonesia Indonesia Japan Malaysia Philippines +62 21 2960 8511 +62 21 2960 8500 +81 3 6271 9451 +603 2298 7933 +63 2 8819 4920 andi.kadir timur.sukirno yoshiaki.muto kherkying.chew donemark.calimon @bakermckenzie.com @bakermckenzie.com @bakermckenzie.com @wongpartners.com @quisumbingtorres.com Daljit Kaur Nandakumar Ponniya Henry Chang Pisut Attakamol Singapore Singapore Taiwan Thailand +65 6434 2255 +65 6434 2663 +886 2 2715 7259 + 66 2636 2000 x 3131 daljit.kaur nandakumar.ponniya henry.chang pisut.attakamol @bakermckenzie.com @bakermckenzie.com @bakermckenzie.com @bakermckenzie.com Minh Tri Quach Fred Burke Vietnam Vietnam +84 24 3936 9605 +84 28 3520 2628 minhtri.quach frederick.burke @bmvn.com.vn @bakermckenzie.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 1 Is FM recognized in statute? If yes, what is impact of statutory rules on FM clauses in contracts? AUSTRALIA No statutory recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT of MASSACHUSETTS CENTRAL DIVISION in Re: CYPHERMINT, INC. Debtor ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Chapt
    Case 10-04054 Doc 69 Filed 07/25/13 Entered 07/25/13 15:27:53 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CENTRAL DIVISION ) In re: ) Chapter 7 ) Case No. 08-42682-MSH CYPHERMINT, INC. ) ) Debtor ) ) ) JOSEPH H. BALDIGA, TRUSTEE ) ) Plaintiff ) Adversary Proceeding ) No. 10-04054 v. ) ) C.A. ACQUISITION CORP., C.A. ) ACQUISITION NEWCO, LLC, and ) PAYCASH MOBILE, LLC ) ) Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff in this adversary proceeding and the chapter 7 trustee in the main case, Joseph H. Baldiga, has moved for summary judgment on a complaint against defendants C.A. Acquisition Corp. (“C.A. Acquisition”), C.A. Acquisition Newco, LLC (“Newco”), and Paycash Mobile, LLC (“Paycash). The trustee’s claims against the defendants arise primarily from their alleged failure to comply with the terms of an agreement to purchase the assets of Cyphermint, Inc. (“Cyphermint”), the debtor in the main case. The defendants oppose the summary judgment motion. 1 Case 10-04054 Doc 69 Filed 07/25/13 Entered 07/25/13 15:27:53 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 13 Facts The relevant facts have been established by those allegations in the complaint admitted to by the defendants, the two affidavits and accompanying exhibits submitted by the trustee in support of his motion for summary judgment,1 and the facts in the trustee’s Concise Statement of Material Facts which have not been disputed by the defendants. On August 28, 2008, C.A. Acquisition offered to purchase the assets of the debtor.
    [Show full text]
  • Contract Basics for Litigators: Illinois by Diane Cafferata and Allison Huebert, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with Practical Law Commercial Litigation
    STATE Q&A Contract Basics for Litigators: Illinois by Diane Cafferata and Allison Huebert, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with Practical Law Commercial Litigation Status: Law stated as of 01 Jun 2020 | Jurisdiction: Illinois, United States This document is published by Practical Law and can be found at: us.practicallaw.tr.com/w-022-7463 Request a free trial and demonstration at: us.practicallaw.tr.com/about/freetrial A Q&A guide to state law on contract principles and breach of contract issues under Illinois common law. This guide addresses contract formation, types of contracts, general contract construction rules, how to alter and terminate contracts, and how courts interpret and enforce dispute resolution clauses. This guide also addresses the basics of a breach of contract action, including the elements of the claim, the statute of limitations, common defenses, and the types of remedies available to the non-breaching party. Contract Formation to enter into a bargain, made in a manner that justifies another party’s understanding that its assent to that 1. What are the elements of a valid contract bargain is invited and will conclude it” (First 38, LLC v. NM Project Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 142680-U, ¶ 51 (unpublished in your jurisdiction? order under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1113 (8th ed.2004) and Restatement (Second) of In Illinois, the elements necessary for a valid contract are: Contracts § 24 (1981))). • An offer. • An acceptance. Acceptance • Consideration. Under Illinois law, an acceptance occurs if the party assented to the essential terms contained in the • Ascertainable Material terms.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, No. 39244-5-II Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. PAUL B. SUNDE, PUBLISHED OPINION Appellant/Cross-Respondent. Quinn-Brintnall, J. — This case concerns a debt collection action involving two credit card accounts. Paul B. Sunde appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of debt collector Unifund CCR Partners regarding a US Bank account. Sunde also appeals an attorney fee award related to the US Bank account debt collection action. Unifund cross appeals the trial court’s denial of summary judgment regarding a Chase Bank account claim. We affirm summary judgment with respect to the US Bank account and Unifund’s reasonable attorney fees award. But because the Washington foreign jurisdiction statute of limitations escape clause, RCW 4.18.040, applies, we hold that the trial court erred when it found the Chase Bank account claim time barred under Delaware law. Accordingly, we reverse with respect to the Chase Bank account and remand for further proceedings. No. 39244-5-II FACTS Unifund is a company that purchases existing debts from original debt holders and collects those debts from the original debtors. On September 5, 2006, Unifund filed a debt collection action in Cowlitz County against Sunde for a US Bank credit card account (US Bank Account) in the amount of $22,428.80. On March 21, 2007, Unifund filed an amended complaint changing the amount owed on the US Bank Account to $24,729.36, and adding a Chase Bank credit card account (Chase Account) debt for $26,435.45.
    [Show full text]