Welcome to the December 2013 edition of the Commercial Litigation Update, an electronic publication that features articles authored by the attorneys in Barnes and Thornburg LLP's Commercial Litigation Practice Group. If you are not currently on our mailing list and would like to receive issues of this newsletter directly via email, visit our subscription page to sign up.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court order that granted a preliminary injunction against a recruiter who was subject to a non-compete covenant. Learn more about Buffkin v. Glacier Group, - N.E.2d --, 2013 WL 5516472 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2013) and what the court determined.
Arbitration is quickly becoming an alternate dispute forum as public courts deal with decreasing budgets and a resistance to keeping proceedings confidential. The United States Supreme Court continued its legacy of enforcing arbitration agreements and upholding arbitrators’ exercise of contractually-granted authority in two different cases during its 2013 term.
Agreement on an arbitral organization has become an important provision parties include in their contracts. But what happens when it comes time to arbitrate and the organization no longer accepts cases? Learn more about how two recent court decisions addressed this issue.
Michigan Court Enforces Oral Agreement to Arbitrate
By: Scott R. Murphy
In a recent franchise dispute concerning the ownership of a Subway franchise, the Court in Namari v Subway Real Estate Corp, 2013 WL 5450283 (Mich App October 1, 2013) enforced an oral agreement to arbitrate all disputes between the parties that was entered into by counsel on the record in the 36th District Court in Detroit, Michigan. Learn more about the Court’s decision.
Indiana Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule that Puffery is not Actionable as Deception or Fraud
By: Caitlin S. Schroeder
A seller’s opinion – what Judge Learned Hand called the “kind[ ] of talk which no sensible man takes seriously” – is sales puffery that is not actionable as deception or fraud. The Indiana Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this longstanding rule.
Buyer Beware When Defects are Readily Discoverable
By: Jeanine Kerridge
Buyers and sellers of goods should take note of a recent Indiana case holding that, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a buyer could not revoke acceptance of non-conforming goods where the defect could have been discovered before the purchase. Learn more about what the case means.
About Our Group
Barnes & Thornburg's commercial litigators advocate our clients' rights in a wide variety of areas at both the trial and appellate levels in state and federal courts throughout the United States. We also represent clients in alternative methods for resolution of disputes outside the courtroom, through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. We provide nationwide coordination of litigation for several Fortune 500 clients and we advise clients with respect to litigation prevention, insurance, and claims-management systems.
For more information about the group, contact Joseph Wendt of the Commercial Litigation Practice Group, or any of the group's attorneys in the following offices: Atlanta (404-846-1693), Chicago (312-357-1313), Columbus (614-628-0096), Elkhart (574-293-0681), Fort Wayne (260-423-9440), Grand Rapids (616-742-3930), Indianapolis (317-236-1313), Los Angeles (310-284-3880), Minneapolis (612-333-2111), South Bend (574-233-1171), Washington, D.C. (202-289-1313).
©2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. It may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of Barnes & Thornburg.
This Barnes & Thornburg LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.