Free Newsletter
Contracts – Architectural Services; Unpaid Invoices; Fee Proposal
admin//March 19, 2012//
Listen to this articleWhere an architectural firm brought claims of breach of contract and quantum meruit against a developer, the District Court properly determined the language of a fee proposal to be ambiguous as to the parties’ intent, so the court did not err in submitting it to the jury, and the developer did not show that an email operated as an unambiguous settlement agreement that superseded the original fee proposal, so the judgment is affirmed over the remaining claim that the court abused its discretion in refusing to submit a contra proferentem instruction. Judgment is affirmed.
11-2368 Shaw Hofstra & Associates v. Ladco Development, Inc., appealed from the Western District of Missouri, Bye, J.
Top News
- Judge lets artist’s sculpture destruction lawsuit proceed
- Top cases on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket
- Lawyers who sought to reverse 2020 election face Michigan hearing
- ABA opinion addresses client rules in engagement letters
- Walmart, mass shooting victims settle; numerous lawsuits still pending
- Wisconsin courts face surge in people unfit for trial due to mental illness
- Breaking the Ice: Pursuit of fairness fueled nontraditional path
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Two new cases here recall Miranda at 60
- Perspectives: Election litigation starting early in Minnesota
- Quandaries & Quagmires: ‘Dear Ethics Lawyer’ — A Resource for Ethics Training
- Best at Work Insights: AI alone can’t improve your company
