STM Wireless, Inc. v. Gilat $1.75 million Klein & Wilson represented a state-owned satellite communications company in a dispute with a competitor over a contract in Peru. The customer won the contract, but claimed that the competitor had stolen the contract by exerting undue influence on Peruvian government ministers. When Klein & Wilson filed a lawsuit on behalf of the client, the competitor`s lawyers said the case was frivolous. Thanks to Klein & Wilson`s efforts, even the U.S. Congress became interested in the case and began its own investigation. In the end, the competitor settled the case for $1.75 million. The finding of the rejection by the court of first instance, which is expressly based on the „conduct of the defendants” and their representatives, indicates that the court found an implied refusal. However, there is no implicit rejection, that is, by conduct that corresponds to a clear refusal of execution, unless „the promisor deprives him of his capacity”. (Zogarts v. Smith, loc.
cit., 86 Cal. 2d 165, 172-173; 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed.) § 632, p. 538; 4 Corbin, Contracts, loc. cit., § 984, pp. 949-951; Vestiges 2d Contrats (Tent Design No. 8, 1973) §§ 268, 274.) Once the mares arrived in Kentucky, the defendants had the power to enforce the contracts; Fleet Nasrullah was able to breed with the mares. No subsequent conduct would have made that performance impossible. Although the plaintiff was subordinated to the shareholders with respect to the priority of reserving a breeding season for Fleet Nasrullah, there is no evidence in the minutes that this subordination of reserve rights made enforcement impossible. Rather, it delayed the turnaround time, which was still within the contractually prescribed limits. This made performance harder to achieve; it could even cast doubt on the final execution of the performance; This did not make performance impossible.
Dnl 12 [15 Cal.3d 140] Bentley-Wing Property W, LLC v. West Development Inc. & West Partners, LLC $6 million Klein & Wilson defense verdict defended a company and its wealthy owner in a lawsuit involving a real estate consortium in San Diego County. The plaintiff asserted that Klein & Wilson`s clients breached various contractual and fiduciary obligations, thereby rendering the interests of the plaintiff`s partnership worthless. The plaintiff hoped to exploit the „wealth card” to convince Trier that he had been deceived about the millions of dollars he had been promised for years of hard work. Klein & Wilson presented evidence showing that the plaintiff was a dual trader who operated several former partners. Klein & Wilson proved that the plaintiff was a sophisticated real estate professional who deceived Klein & Wilson`s client into investing with him. The company has shown that if someone breached a fiduciary duty with respect to the provision of the contract, it was itself a plaintiff. After nearly three weeks of testimony, Klein & Wilson sought a verdict at the end of the plaintiff`s trial and won without having to provide evidence. The court dismissed the plaintiffs` $6 million lawsuit and ruled in favor of Klein & Wilson`s client.
If the parties were to honor the contract, the farmer would miss an opportunity to sell at higher prices, and the winemaker would suffer from paying more than he can afford, given what he would get for the resulting wine at the new market price. Consumers would also be penalized; The evolution of the relative prices of grape jelly and wine indicates that consumers want more jelly and less wine. Greenfield Monterey Park, LLC v The Ezralow Company, LLC Greenfield Monterey Park, LLC v The City of Monterey Park (Settlement) Klein & Wilson has represented several defendants in related lawsuits regarding the proposed development of one of the largest Superfund sites of the Environmental Protection Agency („EPA”) in the United States. The plaintiffs sought tens of millions of dollars in damages from Klein & Wilson`s clients and various public institutions. The parts and site of the EPA Superfund were the subject of a convoluted federal consent order; As a result, Klein & Wilson successfully stayed the cases in state court and asked the plaintiffs to seek relief from the EPA. Once the parties completed the federal dispute resolution process, proceedings resumed in state court and Klein & Wilson settled claims against its customers for only $700,000, of which $275,000 of that amount was paid by the customers` insurers. Klein & Wilson obtained orders stating that the settlement was in good faith, prompting other parties to sue to challenge the trial court`s orders. Klein & Wilson responded with requests for a summary verdict against the contested parties. The parties withdrew their claims and eventually terminated these cases after more than five years of litigation. The courts shall examine the responsibilities of each Party to determine whether it has fulfilled its obligations.
The courts will also review the contract to determine if it contains any changes that may have triggered the alleged violation. As a general rule, the plaintiff must inform a defendant that he is in breach of contract before proceedings. In addition, a breach of contract generally falls into one of two categories: an „actual breach” – if a party refuses to comply fully with the terms of the contract – or an „anticipated breach” – if a party declares in advance that it will not comply with the terms of the contract. In examples of infringement cases, an offer involves discussions about the agreement to provide services or goods in exchange for something valuable. It is also necessary to prove the intention to conclude the agreement between them. Acceptance refers to the act of accepting the terms associated with the exchange described in the Agreement. While it is not necessary for a contract to be in writing for it to be retained in court, it is generally easier to prove that the agreement was accepted because there is a legal document that specifies the terms that each party has agreed to. Is Corporation v. Roes $3 million Klein & Wilson represented a company that hired design professionals and a general contractor to build a retail facility in central California.
Designers and contractors made a number of mistakes that led to design errors. Due to insurance coverage issues, the defendant`s insurance companies refused to reach an agreement until Klein & Wilson made about 50 statements, proving that each defendant was seriously exposed. After several mediations, Klein & Wilson received $3 million in return for its client – enough money for the client to make the necessary repairs for its installation. A breach is minor if, although the infringing party has not performed any aspect of the contract, the other party still receives the item or service specified in the contract. For example, unless the contract expressly provides that „time is crucial” (i.e. deadlines are set) or indicates a specific delivery date of the goods, a reasonable delay by one of the parties can only be considered a minor breach of contract. If a breach is minor, the non-infringing party is still required to perform the contract, but may reimburse damages for the breach. For example, if a seller`s delay in delivering the goods is a minor breach of contract, the buyer will still have to pay for the goods, but may claim damages caused by the delay. Masonry Mechanics v. Breton Construction $200,000 Mr.
Wilson represented Breton Construction in this suit for construction defect and breach of contract. Masonry Mechanics sued Breton Construction for several hundred thousand dollars for non-payment for its work. Mr. Wilson proved that Breton Construction refused to pay for the work because it was defective. In addition, Mr. Wilson proved that Masonry Mechanics caused Breton Construction approximately $200,000 in late damage. In arbitration, the court awarded nothing to Masonry Mechanics and awarded Mr. Wilson`s client approximately $200,000. Nevertheless, both aspects of the defendant`s arguments require from the outset that the specifications contained in the contracts be examined. (See footnote 1, ante.) We note that the reservation for „a service” for the Nasrullah fleet was „for the year 1966”. As evidence has shown, breeding is biologically possible throughout the calendar year, as mares regularly enter the heat every 21 days, unless they are pregnant.
The contracts therefore seem to envisage breeding with Fleet Nasrullah at some point during the 1966 calendar year. The Court of First Instance did not set the date of performance required by the contracts. Fn. 7 It has been proven that breeding in the thoroughbred racing sector is usually carried out during a „breeding season”, which usually runs from January to early July, although some breeding work continues until August. It is possible that the parties intended to remove the mares from Nasrullah`s fleet during the 1966 breeding season and not during the 1966 calendar year. Footnote 8 A breach of contract may also be in the interest of the enterprise as a whole, even if it is not favourable to all contracting parties. If the total net cost of the breach to all parties is less than the net cost incurred by all parties to maintain the contract, it may be economically efficient to terminate the contract, even if it results in damage and economic deterioration to one (or more) parties.