Daniel International Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., Cross-Appellees

916 F.2d 1061 | Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 1990

remandedCited 59 timesBATTLE_TESTEDFederal (5th Circuit)
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

District court abused its discretion by striking jury demands and removing case from jury calendar three months before trial; contractually stipulated 10% profit margin is valid liquidated damages, not a penalty.

Contractually stipulated profit margin was valid liquidation of damages, not penalty.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1990

Related Cases

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy

2002voided

Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.

Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

2004enforced

A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.

Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company

1999reversed

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.

Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.

1999enforced

Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.

Westech Engineering, Inc. v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc.

1992enforced

A subcontractor's equipment failed to meet contract specifications; the trial court properly found breach of contract and awarded damages for cover costs under UCC § 2-207 battle of the forms doctrine.