Spencer Fane LLP Logo
Latest Posts

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?”

1 2 3 4 5 13 Showing 21-30 of 126 results View All