§Why CasetextPricing

Biotronik A.G., Appellant,v.Conor Medsystems Ireland, Ltd., et al., Respondents.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. American List Corp. v. U.S. News & World Report, Inc.

    75 N.Y.2d 38 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 224 times
    Holding that direct damages are "those which are the natural and probable consequence of the breach"

  2. Curtis Properties Corp. v. Greif Co.

    212 A.D.2d 259 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 91 times
    Denying summary judgment to both parties in broker's action for commission

  3. Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.

    418 F. Supp. 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)   Cited 110 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding virtually identical clause

  4. Wood v. Duff-Gordon

    222 N.Y. 88 (N.Y. 1917)   Cited 579 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a fashion designer granted her agent the exclusive right, for at least a year, to use the designer's "indorsements" on third parties' garments in exchange for one-half of the profits from the agent's efforts, "a promise [was] fairly to be implied" by the agent to "use reasonable efforts" to bring at least some profits into existence

  5. Compania Embotelladora Del Pacifico, S.A. v. Pepsi Cola

    650 F. Supp. 2d 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 34 times
    Finding a materially-similar EBA between PepsiCo and its exclusive bottler for certain parts of Peru did not "contain any express language" requiring PepsiCo to take affirmative steps "to prevent other bottlers and third-parties" from selling PepsiCo products in that territory, and declining "to read such obligations into the EBA."

  6. Long Island Lighting v. Transamerica

    646 F. Supp. 1442 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that tender of delivery occurred when the engines were delivered, not when they were finally installed, even where the seller "had continuing responsibility for supervising the installation"

  7. Mood v. Kronos Products, Inc.

    245 S.W.3d 8 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding expert's lost-profits analysis based on assumption of continuation of distributorship agreement constituted no evidence of direct or consequential damages for breach of sixty-day notice-of-termination provision in agreement

  8. Woods v. MONY Legacy Life Insurance

    84 N.Y.2d 280 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 46 times
    Holding an insurance company was engaged in the business of banking for purposes of article 4 when it administered plaintiff's money market account resembling an ordinary checking account

  9. AIRLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. OWL WIRELESS, LLC

    Case No. 3:10 CV 2296 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 20, 2011)   Cited 12 times
    Holding lost profits were barred as consequential damages because they “were contingent upon third-party agreements” and not directly tied to the relevant contract

  10. Viastar Energy, LLC v. Motorola, Inc. (S.D.Ind. 10-26-2006)

    Case No. 1:05-cv-1095-DFH-WTL (S.D. Ind. Oct. 26, 2006)   Cited 7 times
    In ViaStar, the contract required the parties to agree on reasonable sales forecasts “for the purpose of determining a cap on damages before they know who might be claiming breach.