Spencer Fane LLP Logo
Latest Posts

Takings Claims in Federal Court

Affected by a local government just compensation action? Your remedies have now changed significantly. The Supreme Court on June 21, 2019 overturned 35 years of precedent. In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania the Court held that you can now take your federal takings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 directly to federal court without exhausting state court remedies.

Another court rules that contractual consent to be called using an ATDS cannot be unilaterally revoked

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act,  47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA),  makes it unlawful for any person, absent the “prior express consent of the called party,” to make non-emergency calls using any Automated Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service. Anyone who violates the TCPA may be liable for “actual monetary loss” or $500 in damages for each violation, whichever is greater.

Insurance Benefits – Unreasonable Delay and Denial. Supreme Court of Colorado Decides Three Cases Against Insurance Companies.

In a trio of case opinions issued on May 29, 2018, – all written by Chief Justice Nancy Rice who will retire in June – the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against the arguments of insurance companies. 

Ninth Circuit: Seller is not liable for calls made by telemarketer in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

In a recent decision that may affect any company that sells products or services using telemarketers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Jones v. Royal Admin. Servs., Inc. in favor of a product seller, holding the seller was not vicariously liable for calls made by a telemarketer in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act[1] (TCPA) because the telemarketer was an independent contractor.

Eleventh Circuit: Consumers may “partially revoke” consent to be called by automatic dialing systems

In a new decision that may have important implications for telemarketers and others using automatic dialing systems, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in the case of Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) allows a consumer to partially revoke his or her consent to receive automated telemarketing calls.

The Second Circuit issues potentially impactful ruling on revocation of consent to be called under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when that consent is given as bargained-for consideration for a binding contract

Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., (TCPA) to protect consumers from “[u]nrestricted telemarketing, which it determined to be “an intrusive invasion of privacy.” The TCPA prohibits, among other conduct, telephone calls to residential phone lines or cell phones using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party.

When is a seller liable for illegal calls made by a third party telemarketer? Fleshing out vicarious liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Using a telemarketer to market goods or services can be extremely costly to the seller if the telemarketer conducts its business in a manner that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Penalties for violations of the TCPA range from $500 to $1,500 per call. And with call or text campaigns that may reach thousands of recipients, or even millions – the potential liability can be astronomical. It should be no surprise TCPA class action lawsuits are flourishing.

Oklahoma – New Law Requires the Losing Party to Pay Attorney Fees

HB 1470, signed into law last week, does away with the “American Rule,” which impacts which party is responsible for attorney fees at the conclusion of a lawsuit. Set to go into effect in November 2017, the new law requires the court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party – paid for by the non-prevailing party.

Federal Court in Missouri holds technical failure to comply with the FCC’s TCPA opt-out notice requirements on fax advertisements does not confer standing on recipient who consented to receive the faxes

The FCC’s TCPA “opt-out” notice requirements for sending solicited faxes continues to be weakened.

Governor Greitens Orders Review of Every Missouri Regulation

On January 10, 2017, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens signed Executive Order 17-03 (the “Order”). Among other things, the Order compels all state agencies to review each and every Missouri regulation appearing in the Code of State Regulations that falls within their jurisdiction.

A federal district court in Missouri rejects an FDCPA claim based on the legal theory that post-judgment interest in Missouri nontort cases must be specifically awarded in the judgment to be collectable

We are pleased to report a victory in the Eastern District of Missouri in an FDCPA case concerning the collection of statutory post-judgment interest on an unpaid Missouri state court judgment.

Manufacturer’s Corner: A Word on Warranties of Future Performance

Courts sometimes have trouble determining whether a warranty explicitly extends to future performance.  A recent case provides refreshing clarity on the issue.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Climate Change and Consumer Protection Statutes

A new theory of securities fraud may prove important (and dangerous) to manufacturers.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Highlighting Some Important Distinctions Between UCC Article 2 and CISG

If you’re like many manufacturers who sell internationally, your standard terms and conditions provide that the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) does not apply to your transaction.  But, maybe they don’t, or maybe your disclaimer is ineffective (it happens a lot).  In those instances, it’s important to understand where CISG differs from Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which typically covers sales of goods within the United States.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Delivery Terms Have Important Tax Implications for Missouri Manufacturers

Today’s column is prompted by a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Missouri, in which the Court denied a Missouri manufacturer a sales tax refund.

New Trademark Office Program Helps You Preserve Your Trademark Registration as Technologies Evolve

Starting September 1, the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has instituted a pilot program to help you preserve your trademark registration if new technology replaces the format under which the underlying goods or services identified under the registration are offered for sale or provided to consumers.

A federal district court in California denies class certification to a nationwide putative TCPA class of consumers against a debt collector who allegedly made more than 500 million prohibited calls

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently issued an order denying class certification to a nationwide putative class of consumers against The CBE Group, Inc. (“CBE”), which alleged that CBE made over 500 million calls to these consumers’ cell phones without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”).  Blair, et al. v. The CBE Group, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00134-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal. August 26, 2015).

The Sixth Circuit sheds light on meaning of “prior express consent” under the TCPA in a case involving hundreds of calls to a debtor’s cellphone by a creditor using an autodialer

One thing that telemarketers and other companies that communicate with their customers by calling their customer’s cellphones crave is clarity under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227.  The Sixth Circuit recently shed some light on the meaning of “prior express consent” under the TCPA in connection with calls by a creditor to its debtor’s cellphone in the case of Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 14-4168 (6th Cir. August 21, 2015).

The Eleventh Circuit rules that Capital One is not a debt collector under the FDCPA with respect to defaulted credit card debt it acquired from HSBC

In the case of Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 14-14200 (August 21, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit had occasion to decide whether a bank that collects on defaulted debt it acquired from another bank is a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Conflict Mineral Reporting Requirement Still Illegal

On August 18, 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld its prior order striking a portion of the SEC’s conflict mineral rule.

Manufacturer’s Corner: The Danger of Conditioning Your Sale on the Buyer’s Acceptance of Your Terms

If you review the terms and conditions given by many manufacturers in their invoices (including, probably, yours), you likely will find a provision that says something to the effect of “we agree to sell you this product if, and only if, you agree to each of these terms and conditions.”  It’s a common term, and there’s a good reason for it: it can counteract standard form language in the buyer’s purchase order that you don’t like.

Using Alack’s “Magic Word” in Exculpatory Contract Provisions

There is almost never such a thing as a magic word anymore.  In medieval England, people would recite things three times to get magical protection (“third time’s the charm”).  Similarly, in the earliest days of the law, parties would write contracts “under seal” that protected them, regardless of whether the contract was otherwise valid.  That is what a magic word does; it protects you just by being there.  Today, the law hates magic words; courts constantly dig into the hidden meaning behind material terms and the intent and understanding of the parties who use them.  Because there is almost never such a thing as a magic word these days, when one does occur business owners would do well to take note.

Supreme Court Upholds Limit On Royalties To Life Of Patent, But Other Strategies Exist To Extend Life Of Compensation

A patent issued under the U.S. Patent Laws has a finite life, which is 20 years from the date of filing.  A strategy to monetize a patent through licensing must take into consideration that finite life span because after the 20 year patent term, the underlying invention falls into the public domain.  A patent holder may not continue to receive license royalties after the patent’s expiration, as long ago decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U. S. 29 (1964).

Manufacturer’s Corner: Breach of Warranty Claims and CGL Coverage

A court recently held that a CGL insurer owed a duty to defend its insured accused of breaching express and implied warranties.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Manufacturer Gets Second Chance Following Unsuccessful Litigation With Supplier

This is a story about a U.S. manufacturer who got into a dispute with its Chinese supplier. 

Western District of Missouri Bankruptcy Court Finds No FDCPA Violation for Proof of Claim Filed on Time-Barred Debt

Recently, several courts across the country have considered whether filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the statute of limitations violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The increased attention on this issue was sparked by the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit held that filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations violates the FDCPA. After the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, many other courts have decided the issue, and the results of these cases have been mixed. Last week, the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri weighed in, and it found that there was no violation of the FDCPA. Dunaway v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 14-04132-drd, Adv. No. 14-4132, Doc. 29 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. May 19, 2015).

Manufacturer’s Corner: FTC Announces Nothing

In 2011, the FTC requested public comment regarding its interpretations, rules, and guides issued under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  After four years of hard work, the FTC today issued a press release headlined “FTC Will Keep Consumer Product Warranty Rules in Current Form with Some Modifications.”

Can a Rule 68 offer of judgment that offers complete relief to the named plaintiff in a putative class action moot the entire case? While federal courts continue to reach different conclusions, the Supreme Court may finally weigh in

One tactic often used with varying degrees of success to thwart putative class actions brought under various federal statutes is to file an early offer of judgment under Rule 68 that provides the named plaintiff or plaintiffs complete relief in an effort to moot the putative class claims at the inception of a class case.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Eighth Circuit Offers Expansive View of Economic Loss Doctrine

If you regularly read this column, you know that one of the things we spend a lot of time discussing is working appropriate protections into your contracts.  Plaintiffs’ attorneys understand that, and often try to work around those protections by restyling breach of contract or breach of warranty actions as tort claims – that is, claims for negligence or fraud or the like.

What does it mean to be an “Additional Insured?”

The answer lies in the details of the underlying contract and the details of the underlying insurance policy. Today more and more companies are focusing on risk transfer mechanisms within the contracts they have with their vendors, suppliers, contractors and sub-contractors.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Warranties of Future Performance

File this one under “does your warranty really say what you think it says?”

A federal district in Pennsylvania dismisses a putative FDCPA class action based on the filing a proof a claim on a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy

I recently wrote about a decision from a federal district court in Alabama that sidestepped the Eleventh Circuit’s Crawford decision by finding that the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) were in irreconcilable conflict, and the FDCPA gave way to the Code on the question of whether the mere act of filing a proof of claim on a stale debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the FDCPA.

Manufacturer’s Corner: The “Ambush Election” Rule Is In Effect

Beware union organizers loitering around your premises!

Federal Judge in California brings down the curtain on a FCRA class action against Paramount Pictures

Class actions alleging technical violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) against employers who obtain consumer reports on job applicants are all the rage, generating large settlements and headlines (at least in legal circles).

Manufacturer’s Corner: Warranty Disclaimers By Intermediate Sellers

If you’re like many manufacturers, you have no dealings with the end user of your product.  Rather, you sell to a distributor or other intermediate seller, who then sells your product to the end user.  We have previously discussed disclaiming your implied warranties against your intermediate buyer and whether that disclaimer travels “downstream” to the end user, but we haven’t addressed whether a disclaimer made by the intermediary can protect you in a suit by the end user if, say, you failed to disclaim your implied warranties yourself or if for some reason they are not effective against the end user.

The bona fide error defense to FDCPA claims is alive and well in the Eleventh Circuit

In the case of Isaac, et al. v. RMB, Inc., et al., No. 14-11560 (11th Cir. March 17, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld summary judgment in favor of a debt collector based on the affirmative defense of bona fide error.  The case presents a good opportunity to see what type of evidence is needed to prevail on the defense.

Manufacturer’s Corner: The Interplay Between Limited Remedies and Damages Limitations

I previously have urged you to limit the remedies available under your express warranty (e.g. to repair or replacement), and to disclaim liability for incidental and consequential damages.  Here, we’ll discuss a common argument made by people who want to render your efforts meaningless.

A federal district court sidesteps Crawford in dismissing claim for FDCPA violation based on filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy

In a 2014 decision rued by debt collectors everywhere, the Eleventh Circuit in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) ruled that filing a proof of claim to collect a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Manufacturer’s Corner: Just What Is the “Ordinary Use” for a Product Anyway?

For this installment, we turn to an aspect of the implied warranty of merchantability that has not gotten its fair share of attention here: what is “the ordinary purpose” for which your product is used?  It seems like a simple question, but it can be deceptively tricky.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Merchants, Battles of the Forms, and Forum-Selection Clauses

If you read this column with any regularity, it will not surprise you that I was thrilled to read this introduction to a recent court opinion: “The motions to dismiss in this case present a difficult legal issue, as if a civil procedure professor and a Uniform Commercial Code professor conspired on a law school exam question[.]”

Illinois court rules that engineering firm that prepared and recorded plat for new subdivision is not entitled to a mechanic’s lien

An Illinois appellate court recently had an opportunity to decide whether an engineering firm hired to plat undeveloped land for a new subdivision was entitled to file and enforce a mechanic’s lien after the firm was not paid in full for its work.

Manufacturer’s Corner: The West Coast Port Labor Dispute and You

Manufacturer’s Corner. So, there’s a big shipping backlog forming out west while port owners and the longshoremen work a few things out.  How’s that affecting your supply contracts?

Home mortgage lenders hire law firm to send 88,937 collection letters to defaulted borrowers: Borrowers allege this violated the FDCPA and a federal judge certifies the class

In Lori Jo Vincent, et al. v. The Money Store, Inc. et al, No. 03 cv 2876 (S.D.N.Y.  February 2, 2015), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a class of home mortgage borrowers who defaulted on their loans and received uniform “breach letters” from a law firm sent on behalf of the defendant mortgage servicing company and the defendant lenders. 

Manufacturer’s Corner: Disclaiming Implied Warranties to Remote Purchasers

As I’ve noted before in these columns, an implied warranty disclaimer is an essential part of your terms and conditions.  But giving an effective disclaimer is sometimes easier said than done, especially when you do not sell your product directly to the end user, but rather through a wholesaler, retailer, or other intermediary.

Manufacturer’s Corner: President Proposes New Federal Data Breach Notification Law

Shortly before issuing his State of the Union address, President Obama released a proposed federal law mandating notification to individuals whose personal information is compromised in certain data breaches.  Not long ago, I wouldn’t have written about this issue in a Manufacturer’s Corner column, but since I recently decided that the Internet of Things will expose manufacturers to litigation over data privacy, it seems appropriate.

Unfair Competition: Righting Wrongs

If you’re in business, chances are you’ve experienced unfair marketing tactics by one or more of your competitors. Such tactics may include false or misleading advertising or representations concerning the nature or quality of the competitor’s products or services. Or, they may consist of false or misleading statements about what you sell.
You need not stand by while your competition engages in such underhanded tactics.

Is a communication between a debt collector and a credit reporting agency a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” for purposes of the FDCPA?

In a case in which the Eighth Circuit found against a debtor on her claim against a collection agency based on the FDCPA, the court nevertheless adopted a standard followed by other circuits in defining when a communication is “…in connection with the collection of any debt” for purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seqSarah McIvor v. Credit Control Services, Inc., No. 14-1164 (December 4, 2014).

The Sixth Circuit rules that making an offer to settle a valid but time-barred debt may give rise to an FDCPA violation.

In a case that will likely cause debt collectors seeking to collect time-barred obligations grave concern, the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that making an offer to settle a time-barred debt at a discount could mislead an unsophisticated consumer to believe the debt could be enforced in court in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Buchanan v. Northland Group, Inc., No. 13-2523 (January 13, 2015).

Manufacturer’s Corner: New Law Exempts Non-Financial End Users From Margin Requirements For Uncleared Swaps

Here is good news for a certain subset of Manufacturer’s Corner readers.

Manufacturer’s Corner: A Word on Consumer Class Actions

This is not a litigation column, but I’m a trial attorney, so litigation is always on my mind.  I’ve been hearing a lot of chatter lately about consumer class actions.  Specifically: what must a putative consumer class do to show that the class members are ascertainable – that is, that the court and the lawyers and the class members can figure out who is in the class and who is not.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Don’t Fall For Your Own “No Oral Modification” Clause

Here’s a thing that probably appears in your standard terms and conditions: “This agreement cannot be modified or rescinded, except in writing signed by an authorized agent of [your company].”  You can go ahead and check.  It’s probably down toward the bottom, above the miscellaneous provisions like choice of law.

Manufacturer’s Corner: The Importance of Notice Provisions

An easily-overlooked portion of a contract for the sale of goods is the one that addresses what notice the buyer must give the seller in the event the goods do not conform to contract specifications or warranties.  These provisions warrant your close attention, however, because they can be outcome-determinative in the event of litigation over the alleged non-conformity.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Missouri Supreme Court Limits Scope of Manufacturers’ Sales and Use Tax Exemption

Here is a troubling new case from the Missouri Supreme Court.  And I don’t mean troubling in the abstract sense of “oh maybe there could be liability down the road if you don’t do this,” which is pretty much the bread and butter of this column.  I mean troubling in the “you may have already botched this, so you better pull out the books and call the accountants and lawyers” sense.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Incorporating Software Into Your Products (Part 3)

Now that we have completed our brief detour into what the Supreme Court could maybe do with the BP oil spill case if it decides to do anything with it, we resume our ongoing series on what law applies when you incorporate software into your products.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Supreme Court Considering Case With Important Implications for Manufacturers

We take a break from our series on incorporating software into your products to talk about a case the Supreme Court is considering that may prove significant to manufacturers.  This column is not typically the place to go for predictions on what the Supreme Court may do, but I want to bring this case to your attention, and circumstances are forcing me to do it now rather than later.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Incorporating Software Into Your Products (Part 2)

In the first installment of this series, we discussed the general scope of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and, in the broadest terms, whether and when the purchase or sale of software falls within that scope.  In this installment, we’ll move toward our goal of understanding when your purchase or sale of software is governed by Article 2 by looking at how the question has been treated by various courts over time.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Incorporating Software Into Your Products (Part 1)

This column spends a lot of time talking about Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code.  A lot of time.  That’s because it’s a column directed to manufacturers, and Article 2, generally speaking, deals with sales of goods.But that “generally speaking” glosses over quite a bit, and it can cause us to miss important issues.

Loan officer’s statements about lien priority in home mortgage transaction do not give rise to borrower’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation against lender

The North Carolina Supreme Court recently analyzed whether a loan officer owes a borrower a fiduciary duty in a home mortgage transaction.  Dallaire v. Bank of Am., ___N.C.___, 747 S.E.2d 535 (2013), decided June 12, 2014, No. 51PA13.  Jacques and Fernande Dallaire (“Borrowers”) purchased a home as their primary residence in 1998.  Seven years later they filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy due to unrelated business debts. 

Manufacturer’s Corner: Apple Revisited

Remember when I wrote a glowing column about a Master Development and Supply Agreement Apple and its lawyers drafted?  It was one of the most-read posts I’ve written, so I bet a good number of you do.  Since the post was so popular, and since there have been some, well, we’ll say “unanticipated consequences” for Apple, I thought it warranted some follow up.

Class certification denied to putative class alleging Quest Diagnostics engaged in consumer fraud by routinely overbilling patients

The Third Circuit recently affirmed denial of certification of a class of patients who alleged that the medical testing company, Quest Diagnostics, Inc., routinely overbilled patients.  See Grandalski, et a. v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 13-4329 (September 11, 2014).  Quest Diagnostics is the country’s largest provider of medical testing.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Obligatory Post on the Internet of Things

There’s an unwritten rule that if you blog about manufacturing, you must blog about the Internet of Things.  I blog about manufacturing, so here we are.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Apple’s Master Course on Master Supply Agreements

This post comes to you based on a story by the always-excellent Matt Levine of BloombergView. Evidently Apple loaned a company called GT Advanced Technologies a bunch of money so GTAT could develop and supply Apple with sapphire screens for a long time. Anyway, there may have been a default under part of that agreement, and GTAT filed for bankruptcy protection because that default was going to ruin everything (at least according to industry speculation).

Manufacturer’s Corner: A Brief Return to Our Discussion of Statutes of Limitations

A thing I like to do is approach people at parties and other gatherings and ask them if they know they can use contracts to shorten some statutes of limitations.  Usually I get quizzical looks, but I guess the context just worked better when I mentioned it while speaking at a recent event put on by the Kansas Bar Association.  An especially attentive participant asked a good follow-up question that warrants some discussion: can you shorten the limitations period for fraud?

Manufacturer’s Corner: Anatomy of a Limited Warranty (Part 5)

In the first four installments of this series, we covered the essential components of an effective limited warranty.  But each of those installments carried an important caveat: that you were not selling consumer goods.  In this fifth and final installment of the series, we turn our attention to additional warranty issues to consider when selling consumer goods.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Anatomy of a Limited Warranty (Part 4)

We pick up our discussion of effective limited warranties by addressing limitations of remedies.

Putative class action alleging United Airlines breached its frequent-flyer program is dismissed by the Seventh Circuit

The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a putative class action alleging that a major airline improperly calculated frequent-flyer miles.  In Han v. United Continental Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 13-3871, decided August 11, 2014, the plaintiff, Hongbo Han, filed a putative class action against United Air Lines, Inc. and related entities (“United”) alleging it breached the terms of its frequent-flyer program, called the “MileagePlus Program.”

Home builder’s Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy does not cover faulty workmanship of subcontractors

In the case of J-McDaniel Construction Co., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, the Eighth Circuit, applying Arkansas law, had occasion to explore the scope of a home builder’s coverage under its Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy. No. 13-267, August 4, 2014.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Anatomy of a Limited Warranty (Part 3)

In our last installment in this series, we looked at the express warranty portion of an effective limited warranty.  We now turn our attention to the importance of shortening the limitations period for bringing a warranty claim.  Please remember that, for our purposes here, we’re assuming a non-consumer sale.

Manufacturing Custom-made Goods in the United States

Pat and I recently had the opportunity to publish an article with Practical Law, called “Manufacturing Custom-made Goods in the United States.”

Manufacturer’s Corner: Anatomy of a Limited Warranty (Part 2)

In our last installment, I introduced the importance of making your warranty terms clear.  Now, we turn to the specifics, beginning with the express warranty itself.  Here are some of the boxes you need to check when reviewing your express warranty.

Are federal courts committing a FCRA violation when lawyers pay filing fees online?

Fellow federal practitioners, could something most of us do on a regular basis be a money making opportunity we’ve simply overlooked? An enterprising lawyer in the Northern District of Illinois thought so.  Unfortunately, in the case of Bormes v. United States of America, No. 13-1602, (7th Circuit), handed down July 22, 2014, the Seventh Circuit answered in the negative.

Antitrust “market allocation” claims against nation’s two biggest grocery wholesalers survive summary judgment

In In re: Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-1297 (May 21, 2014), the Eighth Circuit allowed an antitrust case brought by a small town, family owned grocery store in Iowa, D&G, Inc.,[1] to continue against the nation’s two largest wholesale distributors, SuperValu, Inc. and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., finding disputed facts prevented summary judgment.

Update on rideshare battle in St. Louis: Court issues preliminary injunction against Lyft

I previously wrote about the legal battle in St. Louis brought by Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (“MTC”) against the rideshare app company Lyft in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Case No. 1422-CC0089-01. My comment can be found here.
As I discussed, the court entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting Lyft from operating in St. Louis and St. Louis County. On July 14, 2014, the court again ruled in favor of the MTC, granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting Lyft from operating in the St. Louis area until a final decision is reached on the merits of the case.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Anatomy of a Limited Warranty (Part 1)

It’s a sad fact of life at companies and law firms that sometimes things are done a certain way just because that’s how they’ve always been done. Part of the reason this column spends so much time talking about your terms and conditions, however, is because that’s dangerous: how you do things now should be informed by the past, but not bound by the past.

Eighth Circuit continues to hold that Missouri’s economic loss doctrine bars negligent misrepresentation claims involving allegedly defective or unsuitable products

Manufacturers and lessors of equipment and other products doing business in Missouri can take heart that the Eighth Circuit has issued its third opinion in the past year applying Missouri’s economic loss doctrine to bar negligent misrepresentation claims in cases involving allegedly defective or unsuitable products. 

Manufacturer’s Corner: Revocation of Acceptance and the Statute of Frauds

I’m going to break my self-imposed rule of writing for manufacturers instead of lawyers. This post is some pretty in-the-weeds stuff, but the topic has been on my mind and I think it’s interesting. If you have opinions on it, I’d love to hear them.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Dealing With Sales on Approval or Return

Expanding on our recent discussion about how your shipping terms can affect risk of loss in the product you sell, let’s turn to other contract provisions that implicate the same issue: sales on approval or return.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Responding to Claims That Your Goods Do Not Conform to Contract Specifications

It’s inevitable: at some point, you will ship goods to your buyer, and the buyer will complain that they don’t conform to the contract specifications.  When you’re dealing with a small shipment or a great customer, often the simplest solution is to accept the return and send replacement goods.  Other times, however, you’ll be dealing with a major shipment or a problem customer, and you must be certain that you protect yourself while responding to the customer’s concerns.

Manufacturer’s Corner: When Bankruptcy and Your Shipping Terms Collide

In recent installments of the Manufacturer’s Corner, we have discussed how to protect yourself from insolvent customers and how your shipping terms can expose you to unexpected risk. Thanks to the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, we can explore how those two issues play together.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Recent Development in Implied Warranties (Part 2)

We continue our discussion of June’s interesting implied warranty cases with a trip south to the Supreme Court of Texas.  As I mentioned in the previous installment of the Manufacturer’s Corner, the Court declared a simple, bright-line rule on how a valid disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability affects remote purchasers.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Recent Developments in Implied Warranties

In this head-scratcher of an opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals makes three legal conclusions that will shock practitioners.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Protecting Against the “Efficient Breach”

The Oregon Supreme Court has given us a great platform to discuss what happens when a buyer simply decides that breaching the contract is a better idea than performing.  It’s an important case to consider, both in your capacity as a seller of goods, and in your capacity as a frequent buyer of goods under long-term sales contracts.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Can You Prove the Contents of Your Shipment?

In a happy coincidence of timing, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an entertaining opinion addressing the Carmack Amendment, which is a federal law limiting the liability of motor carriers for loss or damage of goods during shipment. The opinion will allow us to continue our discussion of mitigating shipping risks, introduced in the last installment of this column.

83 results View Less