<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Law Riot &#187; Briefs-Contracts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawriot.com/tag/briefs-contracts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawriot.com</link>
	<description>Everything Law &#38; Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:19:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>R.E. Davis Chemical Corp v. Diasonics, Inc. &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/04/r-e-davis-chemical-corp-v-diasonics-inc-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/04/r-e-davis-chemical-corp-v-diasonics-inc-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief R.E. Davis Chemical Corp v. Diasonics, Inc. Procedural History: District Court denies Diasonics motion for summary judgment. District Court grants R.E. summary judgment motion. Diasonic appeals these rulings. Diasonic also appeals the order dismissing its third-party complaint against Dobbin and Valvassori. Affirmed the dismissal of the third-party complaint. Reversed the grant of summary [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/04/r-e-davis-chemical-corp-v-diasonics-inc-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Raffles v. Wichelhaus (Peerless Case) &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/raffles-v-wichelhaus-peerless-case-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/raffles-v-wichelhaus-peerless-case-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief Raffles v. Wichelhaus Procedural History: Judgment for the Defendant. Facts: It was agreed that the plaintiff would sell the defendant 125 bales of Surat cotton. It was to arrive on the Peerless from Bombay. The defendants would pay at the rate of 17 ¼ d. per pound within a certain time then agreed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/raffles-v-wichelhaus-peerless-case-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Colfax Envelope Corp. v. Local No. 458-3M &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/colfax-envelope-corp-v-local-no-458-3m-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/colfax-envelope-corp-v-local-no-458-3m-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:57:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=448</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief Colfax Envelope Corp. v. Local No. 458-3M Procedural History: District Judge granted summary judgment for the union. Appealed. Affirmed. Facts: Colfax is a manufacturer of envelopes. Colfax currently has two printing presses. One prints 78-inch wide sheets in four colors. One prints 78-inch wide sheets in five colors. Colfax has too few employees [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/colfax-envelope-corp-v-local-no-458-3m-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trident Center v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/trident-center-v-connecticut-general-life-ins-co-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/trident-center-v-connecticut-general-life-ins-co-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:19:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief Trident Center v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. Procedural History: District Court dismissed Tridents case. Appealed. Reversed and Remanded to District Court. Facts: In 1983 Security First Life Insurance Company and the law firms of several attorneys formed a limited partnership for the purpose of constructing an office building complex. The partnership, Trident [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/trident-center-v-connecticut-general-life-ins-co-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc. &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/greenfield-v-philles-records-inc-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/greenfield-v-philles-records-inc-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc. Procedural History: Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. Appealed. Affirmed. Appealed. The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion and, as so modified, affirmed. Facts: The contract in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/greenfield-v-philles-records-inc-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pacific Gas &amp; Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage &amp; Rigging Co. &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/pacific-gas-electric-co-v-g-w-thomas-drayage-rigging-co-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/pacific-gas-electric-co-v-g-w-thomas-drayage-rigging-co-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:17:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief Pacific Gas &#38; Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage &#38; Rigging Co. Procedural History: Lower court ruled for the Plaintiff. Appealed. Reversed. Facts: 1960 – Defendant entered into a contract with plaintiff to furnish the labor and equipment necessary to remove and replace the upper metal cover of plaintiff’s steam turbine. Defendant agreed: [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/pacific-gas-electric-co-v-g-w-thomas-drayage-rigging-co-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping and Construction Co. &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/bollinger-v-central-pennsylvania-quarry-stripping-and-construction-co-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/bollinger-v-central-pennsylvania-quarry-stripping-and-construction-co-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:17:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping and Construction Co. Procedural History: Lower Court ruled for the Plaintiff. Appealed. Affirmed. Facts: Bollinger’s entered into an agreement  which provided that the defendant was to be permitted to deposit on the property of the plaintiffs, construction waste as it engaged in work on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/bollinger-v-central-pennsylvania-quarry-stripping-and-construction-co-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Masterson v. Sine &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/masterson-v-sine-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/masterson-v-sine-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:16:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief Masterson v. Sine Procedural History: Case tried without a jury and ruled for the Plaintiff. Appealed. Reversed. Facts: Masterson and his wife owned a ranch as tenants in common. February 25, 1958, they conveyed it to Medora and Lu Sine. “Reserving unto the Grantors herein an option to purchase the above described property [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/masterson-v-sine-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gianni v. R. Russell &amp; Co. &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/gianni-v-r-russell-co-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/gianni-v-r-russell-co-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:16:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief Gianni v. R. Russell &#38; Co. Procedural History: Lower Court ruled for the Plaintiff. Appealed. Reversed. Facts: Plaintiff was a tenant of a room in an office building where he conducted a store, selling tobacco, fruit, candy and soft drinks. Defendant acquired the entire property which included the store room. The defendant’s agent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/gianni-v-r-russell-co-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Simeone v. Simeone &#8211; Case Brief</title>
		<link>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/simeone-v-simeone-case-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/simeone-v-simeone-case-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LawRiotAdmin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs-Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawriot.com/?p=355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contracts Brief Simeone v. Simeone Procedural History: The master upheld the prenuptial agreement. Appealed. Affirmed. Appealed to the Supreme Court Affirmed. Facts: Walsh was a 23 year old unemployed nurse when she was engaged to Simeone in 1975. On the eve of their wedding, she was approached by an attorney of Simeone with a prenuptial [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawriot.com/2010/03/simeone-v-simeone-case-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

