Breach of Contract Claims Sample Clauses

Breach of Contract Claims. [Option (Include if University prefers an abbreviated Breach of Contract Claims provision): To the extent that Chapter 2260, Texas Government Code, is applicable to this Agreement and is not preempted by other applicable law, the dispute resolution process provided for in Chapter 2260 and the related rules adopted by the Texas Attorney General pursuant to Chapter 2260, will be used by University and Contractor to attempt to resolve any claim for breach of contract made by Contractor that cannot be resolved in the ordinary course of business. The chief business officer of University will examine Contractor's claim and any counterclaim and negotiate with Contractor in an effort to resolve the claims. The parties specifically agree (i) neither execution of this Agreement by University nor any other conduct, action or inaction of any representative of University relating to this Agreement constitutes or is intended to constitute a waiver of University’s or the state's sovereign immunity to suit; and (ii) University has not waived its right to seek redress in the courts.]
Breach of Contract Claims. 12.19.1 To the extent that Chapter 2260, Texas Government Code, as it may be amended from time to time ("Chapter 2260"), is applicable to this Agreement and is not preempted by other Applicable Laws, the dispute resolution process provided for in Chapter 2260 will be used, as further described herein, by University and Contractor to attempt to resolve any claim for breach of contract made by Contractor:
Breach of Contract Claims. To the extent that Chapter 2260, Texas Government Code, as it may be amended from time to time ("Chapter 2260"), is applicable to this Agreement and is not preempted by other Applicable Laws, the dispute resolution process provided for in Chapter 2260 will be used, as further described in this Section, by University and Contractor to attempt to resolve any claim for breach of contract made by Contractor. Contractor’s claims for breach of this Agreement that the parties cannot resolve pursuant to other provisions of this Agreement or in the ordinary course of business will be submitted to the negotiation process provided in subchapter B of Chapter 2260. To initiate the process, Contractor will submit written notice, as required by subchapter B of Chapter 2260, to University in accordance with the notice provisions in this Agreement. Contractor's notice will specifically state that the provisions of subchapter B of Chapter 2260 are being invoked, the date and nature of the event giving rise to the claim, the specific contract provision that University allegedly breached, the amount of damages Contractor seeks, and the method used to calculate the damages. Compliance by Contractor with subchapter B of Chapter 2260 is a required prerequisite to Contractor's filing of a contested case proceeding under subchapter C of Chapter 2260. The Chief Business Officer of University, or another officer of University as may be designated from time to time by University by written notice to Contractor in accordance with the notice provisions in this Agreement, will examine Contractor's claim and any counterclaim and negotiate with Contractor in an effort to resolve the claims. If the parties are unable to resolve their disputes under Section 9.18.1, the contested case process provided in subchapter C of Chapter 2260 is Contractor’s sole and exclusive process for seeking a remedy for any and all of Contractor's claims for breach of this Agreement by University.
Breach of Contract Claims. Bates first claims that Chase breached the mortgage deed by failing to comply strictly with certain regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) as part of the Federal Housing Administration lending program. The regulations were incorporated into her deed as conditions precedent to the power to accelerate and the power of sale. Chase raises a number of objections3 to this theory of liability, and the district court accepted some of them, essentially holding that it would be anomalous to allow a
Breach of Contract Claims. Counts One through Forty-Six of the Fourth Amended Complaint allege breach of contract claims. FAC ¶¶ 84–852. Each Defendant argues that the breach of contract claims—factual allegations alleging substantial impairments to the homes falling short of total cave-ins— fail to state a claim covered by the insurance policies. See e.g., Certain Defs. Mot. to Dismiss.Under Connecticut law, the terms of an insurance policy are “construed according to the general rules of contract construction.” Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Indus., 290 Conn. 767, 795 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). While contracts are strictly construed in favor of the insured, “the mere fact that the parties advance different interpretations of the language in question does not necessitate a conclusion that the language is ambiguous.” Id. at 796. Insurance contract “language should be construed in favor of the insured unless it has ‘a high degree of certainty’ that the policy language clearly and unambiguously excludes theclaim.” Id. (quoting Kelly v. Figueiredo, 223 Conn. 31, 37 (1992)). Courts should construe insurance contracts as laypeople would. Kim v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 17-2304- CV, 2018 WL 4847195, at *1 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2018)(summary order), citing Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Walukiewwicz, 966 A.2d 672, 678 (Conn. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).The Second Circuit recently addressed insurance contract interpretation in a concrete case involving plaintiff-appellants Gueng-Ho Kin and Jae Kim (“the Kims”). Kim, 2018 WL 4847195. The Kims’ State Farm insurance policy expressly excludedany loss . . . [due to]. . . .settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion of pavements, patios, foundation, walls, floors, roofs or ceilings [and any loss due to] defect, weakness, inadequacy, fault orunsoundness in materials used in construction or repair.” Id. at *4. Because the policy language “explicitly excludes coverage for the collapse of an insured dwelling that was caused by foundation concrete cracking because of the use of defective materials in the construction. . . . the language is not ambiguous.” Id. Since the contract language would be clear to a layperson, the district court affirmed summary judgment.This recent decision is consistent with decisions throughout the District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs whose policies do not include collapse provisions6 cannot recover when clear policy language has disclaimed liability for “any l...
Breach of Contract Claims. Fields’s complaint alleges that NYS breached the supply agreement “by failing to provide equal pricing of the steel products to Fields and Fields’ competitors” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 51) and that NYS breached “its express and implied obligation to use best efforts to supply Fields with the steel products required during the covered period. Specifically, [NYS] restricted Fields’sallocation of H-piles, and unreasonably refused to make additional rollings of such products available to Fields during the covered period.” (
Breach of Contract Claims. At trial, the jury found that Taylor did not breach the contract, but that Addie and Perez did. In addition, the jury found that all of the Sellers had breached, and awarded Taylor alone $1,546,000 in damages. On August 14, 2009, the District Court reduced this award to $1,500,000, representing the actual amount expended by Taylor. Sellers moved for reconsideration. On March 1, 2011, the District Court granted Sellers’ motion, in part, amending the jury’s award to Taylor from $1.5 million to $0. The Court reasoned that the Contracts of Sale imposed concurrent conditions and all of the parties had failed to satisfy these conditions within the closing timeframe. Because all of the parties had defaulted, the District Court held that no one could recover for breach of contract. Thus, Taylor could not recoup the $1.5 million deposit.
Breach of Contract Claims. In its Second Amended Complaint, Bank of America alleges breach of contract claims in regard to the Loan Agreement, the Credit Card Agreement, and the Guaranty. The parties agree that Illinois law governs these claims. To established a breach of contract claim under Illinois law, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract; (2) plaintiff’s substantial performance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages. See Reger Dev., LLC v. National City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 764 (7th Cir. 2010); Carlton at the Lake, Inc. v.Barber, 401 Ill.App.3d 528, 531, 340 Ill.Dec. 669, 928 N.E.2d 1266 (Ill. 2010). In their response brief, Defendants do not argue that Bank of America has failed to fulfill these four elements or that Defendants did not breach the contracts at issue. See Steen v. Myers, 486 F.3d 1017, 1020 (7th Cir. 2007) (absence of discussion amounts to abandonment of claims); Wojtas v. Capital Guardian Trust Co., 477 F.3d 924, 926 (7th Cir. 2007) (failure to offer any opposition to argument constitutes waiver). Instead, Defendants argue that their elections of remedies affirmative defense bars summary judgment. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, the Court reviews the evidence supporting Bank of America’s breach of contract claims.First, the undisputed facts establish that Bank of America has satisfied all four elements of a breach of contract claim concerning the Loan Agreement. Specifically, Bank of America and Defendants executed the Loan Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, and the Term Note. Also, Bank of America has complied with all duties imposed upon it pursuant tothese agreements. Moreover, Shelbourne admitted that it defaulted on the Loan Agreement by failing to deliver a construction loan commitment by November 1, 2008. And, as a result of Shelbourne’s default, Bank of America demanded immediate repayment of all amounts owed under the Loan Agreement on November 18, 2008.In addition, evidence in the record reveals that Bank of America has satisfied the breach of contract elements in regard to the Credit Card Agreement. In particular, the parties entered into the Credit Card Agreement on October 9, 2007, and Bank of America has complied with the duties imposed upon it under the Credit Card Agreement. Further, on August 4, 2009, Bank of America sent Shelbourne a letter terminating Shelbourne’s Commercial Card effective August 31, 2009 and demanding payment in full in connection with the Commercial Card by...