§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

29 Cited authorities

  1. Tractebel Energy Marketing, Inc. v. AEP Power Marketing, Inc.

    487 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 263 times
    Comparing New York law for general and consequential damages, and noting that while both standards require the fact of damage to be "reasonably certain," proof of consequential damages involves "a higher burden" because "[w]hile certainty of amount is not an element of general damages in New York, it is an element of consequential damages."

  2. Garner v. Correctional Servs

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3947 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 241 times
    Holding that post-release supervision imposed by anyone other than a judge violates New York state law

  3. Kenford Co. v. Erie County

    67 N.Y.2d 257 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 386 times
    Holding that damages based on lost future profits "may not be merely speculative, possible or imaginary, but must be reasonably certain and directly traceable to the breach, not remote or the result of other intervening causes"

  4. Metropolitan Life v. Noble Lowndes

    84 N.Y.2d 430 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 195 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding proof that “defendant's repudiation of the Agreement was motivated exclusively by its own economic self-interest” is insufficient to show willful misconduct

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

    75 N.Y.2d 38 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 195 times
    Holding that direct damages are "those which are the natural and probable consequence of the breach"

  6. AT&T v. N.Y. City Human Res. Admin.

    833 F. Supp. 962 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that contract that included “incidental” installation services was still one for the sale of goods, and thus barring the plaintiff's tort claims under the economic loss doctrine

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

    418 F. Supp. 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)   Cited 105 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding virtually identical clause

  8. Morgenthau v. Citisource, Inc.

    68 N.Y.2d 211 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 76 times
    In Citisource, after arrests for bribery and larceny, the prosecutor obtained ex parte attachment orders for $2 million of the defendants' funds as alleged proceeds of the crimes.

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

    650 F. Supp. 2d 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 32 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."

  10. Long Island Lighting v. Transamerica

    646 F. Supp. 1442 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)   Cited 68 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"

  11. Section 2-719 - Contractual Modification or Limitation of Remedy

    N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-719   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting limitation of remedy to repair or replacement

  12. Section 2-715 - Buyer's Incidental and Consequential Damages

    N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-715   Cited 67 times

    (1) Incidental damages resulting from the seller's breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions in connection with effecting cover and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach. (2) Consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach include (a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which

  13. Section 2-102 - Scope; Certain Security and Other Transactions Excluded From This Article

    N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-102   Cited 55 times

    Unless the context otherwise requires, this Article applies to transactions in goods; it does not apply to any transaction which although in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale is intended to operate only as a security transaction nor does this Article impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers. N.Y. U.c.c. Law § 2-102

  14. Section 2-105 - Definitions: Transferability; "Goods"; "Future" Goods; "Lot"; "Commercial Unit"

    N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-105   Cited 51 times
    Defining "goods"

  15. Section 2-713 - Buyer's Damages for Non-Delivery or Repudiation

    N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-713   Cited 24 times

    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Article with respect to proof of market price (Section 2-723), the measure of damages for non-delivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this Article (Section 2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach. (2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for