1.The Plaintiffs Have Suffered Physical And Financial Loss

Parties and their roles: In this case there was Dorris Reed (plaintiff) and Robert King as the (defendant).

Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be

On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in

The Plaintiff is claiming $35 million from the State of NSW, which is purported to be vicariously liable for the Land and Environment Court and Pain J [1]. This claim includes nullifying Pain J’s judgment [14], and it is accompanied by Motions to uphold Lloyd J’s dismissal and refund the Plaintiff’s filing fees [2].

Identify any person not already named as a party to this lawsuit whom you contend caused or contributed to the occurrence complained of, including any architect, engineer, designer, contractor, subcontractor or others.

15–1. Liquidated Damages. Carnack contracts to sell his house and lot to Willard for $100,000. The terms of the contract call for Willard to make a deposit of 10 percent of the purchase price as a down payment. The terms further stipulate that if the buyer breaches the contract, Carnack will retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Willard makes the deposit, but because her expected financing of the $90,000 balance falls through, she breaches the contract. Two weeks later, Carnack sells the house and lot to Balkova for $105,000. Willard demands her $10,000 back, but Carnack refuses, claiming that Willard’s breach and the contract terms entitle him to keep the deposit. Discuss who is correct. (See Damages.)

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

• Contracts were exchanged on 2 May 2005 for the purchase of property for $2,130,000 between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.

The trial court judged in favor of Plaintiff, thus, Plaintiff won and Defendant lost. The question of fact was if a contract existed between the parties. The trial court decided that the contract existed, even Ivan was against it, if he had read through Application for Advertising, he would have realized that he was signing contract.

(2) Other defendant: Other defendants might be Leanne and also the contractor that is responsible for the renovation.

This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of All Claims (“Agreement”) is made and entered into between APRIL STAR DAVIS (“DAVIS”) and THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT BURNS (“BURNS”), with reference to the following facts:

Counsel: For the claimant: Hodge Malek QC. For the first and third defendants: Oliver Ticciati. For the second defendant: Paul Brant.

On the 21st July 2009, The Claimant submitted a brief quote of £14835.00 plus Vat @15% for the essential works required by the Defendant. The quote clearly indicated that the Claimant would charge the Defendant accordingly for any additional costs. Mr Traylen Personally explained the procedure systematically so as the Defendant fully understood and agreed on the Claimants terms and conditions. She was made entirely aware that payment was within a period of 14 days of submission as specified.

3) Can there be any other grounds on which the client can sue the abovementioned parties?