Category: Commercial Litigation

Posted on

An “Unmanageable” Task: Breach of Warranty Claims in Multi-State Class Action Litigation

An Article by William Beatty

Read the full Article here.

The crossroads of warranty law and class action litigation pose substantial hurdles for claimants asserting a multi-state class action for breach of express or implied warranty. Not only do they have to satisfy the rigorous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation, but also have to fit the cases into one of the three categories outlined in Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs must also deal with widely varying state rules regarding such issues as reliance, pre-suit notice and privity of contract which might destroy the required elements of commonality or typicality. These variables have resulted in several courts deeming multi-state warranty class actions to be “unmanageable,” rendering them unsuitable for class-wide resolution.… Read the rest

Posted on

A COURSE CORRECTION FOR ANALYZING CLAIMS OF TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH AT-WILL CONTRACTS: ABANDONING A LINE OF ILLINOIS DECISIONS FOUNDED ON A MISTAKE

An Article by Joe Jeffery

Download the full Article here.

Illinois recognizes two types of torts to remedy an actor’s interference with a party’s business relationships: tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.[1] Whether interference with an at-will contract is more appropriately remedied under the interference-with-contract tort or the interference-with-prospective-economic-advantage tort is a distinction with a significant difference. Determining which tort applies may be critical to the outcome of a dispute because the two torts provide different levels of protection against a third party’s interference.[2] Contractual relationships enjoy greater protection from interference than relationships based on the mere possibility of future economic advantage.[3]

[1] See Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 568 N.E.2d 870, 877–78 (Ill. 1991); see also Speakers of Sport, Inc. v. ProServ, Inc., 178 F.3d 862, 865 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[I]nducing the termination of a contract, even when the termination … Read the rest

Posted on

Liquid Aloha: A Case on Beer Brewed on the Shores of the Hawaiian Islands or the Banks of the Big Muddy

By Joe Yeoman

Download full note here.

This Note explores the recent complaint filed against Kona Brewing Co., and the Note argues that the case should not be dismissed on a failure to state a claim. The consumers in the complaint allege that Kona. misrepresented where Kona’s beer is brewed. The complaint alleges that Kona markets that their beer is brewed on the Hawaiian Islands, when it is in fact brewed on the continental United States. The marketing of the beer as a Hawaiian beer remains an important component in the brand’s growth. This Note examines comparable case law that will help the District Court with the complaint. Additionally, this Note proposes how the District Court should rule on Kona’s Motion to Dismiss.… Read the rest