Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The defendants (Connelly firm) represented plaintiff in his divorce until July 2005. In July 2006 plaintiff consulted attorney, Downey, who notified the Connelly firm of a malpractice claim in October. In March 2007 plaintiff signed an agreement to file suit, but Downey did not file. In February 2008 Downey notified the plaintiff that he was terminating representation and stated that the limitations period on the malpractice claim ran out before Downey began representation. In 2009 plaintiff filed a malpractice suit against the Connelly firm, under a contract theory, and against Downey. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded claims against Downey, applying the "discovery rule" rather than the occurrence rule to negligence by the Connelly firm. Although plaintiff knew that certain witnesses were not called during a 2004 hearing, he claims that he relied on the firm's assurances and did not have constructive notice of negligence until a July 2005 hearing. The question of when the limitations period began to run was for a jury.

In 1983 the Department of Energy contracted to dispose of spent nuclear fuel from plaintiff's Columbia, Washington facility. The DOE failed to perform and, with its own temporary storage filling up, the plaintiff began work on its own permanent storage facility in 2002. The trial court award of $56.9 million included amounts for modifications to the temporary storage facility, indirect overhead, and financing costs. The Federal Circuit vacated. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for modifications only to the extent that it could prove that, but for the breach, those costs would not have been incurred; the trial court did not require the plaintiff to prove causation. The trial court properly included an award for indirect overhead calculated to a reasonable certainty. The government was entitled to sovereign immunity (28 U.S.C. 2516) with respect to the award of $6 million in interest; the contract did not waive immunity.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.