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