We pick up our discussion of effective limited warranties by addressing limitations of remedies.
Latest Posts
| 08.28.2014 |
|
| 08.21.2014 |
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.” |
| 08.19.2014 |
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. |
| 08.17.2014 |
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. |
| 08.06.2014 |
Pat and I recently had the opportunity to publish an article with Practical Law, called “Manufacturing Custom-made Goods in the United States.” |
| 08.01.2014 |
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. |
| 08.01.2014 |
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. |
| 07.28.2014 |
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. |
| 07.25.2014 |
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. |
| 07.25.2014 |
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. |