insuranceneeds.in

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, 6 December 2012

Appellate Court Upholds Personal Guarantee

Posted on 20:55 by Unknown


YELLOW BOOK SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC. v. Feldman, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 4th Div. 2012 - Google Scholar:


This case, which is a dispute over $13,178.01, contains a lengthy discussion of the contract principles relevant to the enforcement of personal guarantees. The key question was whether the contract's terms were clear enough to the reader.


The contract is quoted by the court as follows:


"THIS IS AN ADVERTISING CONTRACT BETWEEN YELLOW BOOKS SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC. OR YP TEL. AND _________________________ and Print Customer Name X______________________________ Authorized Signature individually and for the Customer. (Read Paragraph 14G on the reverse hereof).





¶ 4 Each of the four contracts contain "Glassworks, Inc." above the "Print Customer Name" line. Feldman's signature appears on the second line of each contract and his name is followed by either "Pres." or "President." Feldman's name is printed on the following line.


¶ 5 Paragraph 14G of the form contracts, referred to in the signature block and found on the back side, is written in fine print and states:


"The signer agrees that he/she has the authority and is signing this agreement (1) in his/her individual capacity, (2) as a representative of the Customer, and (3) as a representative of the entity identified in the advertisement or for whose benefit the advertisement is being purchased (if the entity identified in the advertisement is not the same as the Customer or the signer). By his/her execution of this agreement, the signer personally and individually undertakes and assumes, jointly and severally with the Customer, the full performance of this agreement, including payment of amounts due hereunder."

The trial court found this language ambiguous and ordered a trial to determine the parties' intent. After hearing evidence the court found that Feldman was sophisticated (he was a lawyer) and must have understood what he was signing. Paragraph 39.


The appellate court found that the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It noted that Feldman had signed four similar such contracts, and must have understood what the language meant.


One issue the case does not discuss is whether the trial court was correct to deny Yellow Book's motion for summary judgment and order a trial. The language seems clear. The word "individually" is easy to understand. In sum, I believe the case can be resolved on the plain meaning of the contract. Someone who signs individually knows he is agreeing to pay the balance if the company cannot pay it. The word "individually" signals a personal guarantee to the signer.


Edward X. Clinton, Jr.


www.clintonlaw.net

'via Blog this'
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in Contract Law | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • The Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)5
    Sometimes it is worth reviewing the basics. How is it that an investor can bring a Section 10b-5 claim against a company and/or its officer...
  • Securities Law - The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) is a massive revision of the way in which financial services are f...
  • The Dodd-Frank Act Has Expanded SEC Enforcement Powers
    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has significantly expanded SEC enforcement powers. All of the expanded powers...
  • Illinois Court Rejects Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurance Broker
    Insurance brokers have a fiduciary duty to their clients. However, according to the Illinois Appellate Court, that fiduciary duty only appli...
  • Securities Law - SEC Appeals Adverse Mark Cuban Ruling
    Earlier this year, see below entry of September 18, 2009, the Northern District of Texas dismissed the SEC’s complaint, alleging insider tra...
  • LLC Operating Agreement Defeats Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
    WOSS, LLC v. 218 ECKFORD, LLC, 102 AD 3d 860 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2013 - Google Scholar : The plaintiff LLC was a member of the d...
  • The Sad Tale of Norvergence Illustrates the Unique Law Applicable to Finance Companies
    Most people think that if a product does not work, you should not have to pay for it. This is usually true. It is not true when a finance ...
  • LLC Question - Does The LLC Have To Buy The Interest Of A Departing member?
    CONCORDIA PARTNERS, LLC v. Ward, Dist. Court, D. Maine 2013 - Google Scholar : The typical LLC operating agreement contains a provision gove...
  • Business Debts - The Bankruptcy Court Will Not Discharge A Debt Where The Underlying Loan Was Procured Through Fraud
    In Ojeda v. Goldberg , No. 09-2008, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a determination of the District Court (Judge Gottschall) that a debt was no...
  • Urologists take investment battle to court - Health Care News - Crain's Chicago Business
    Urologists take investment battle to court - Health Care News - Crain's Chicago Business : 'via Blog this'

Categories

  • Business Advice
  • Collection Law
  • Consumer Rights
  • Contract Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Creditor Rights
  • Federal Arbitration Act
  • Federal Rules of Evidence
  • Fraud Claims
  • Fraudulent Transfer
  • Insurance Coverage Disputes
  • Internet Collection Scam
  • Limited Liability Company Issues
  • Litigation Issues
  • Moorman Doctrine
  • Mortgage Foreclosure
  • Noncompetition Agreements
  • Personal Jurisdiction
  • Securities Law
  • Shareholder Derivative Actions
  • Too Many Lawyers and Too Many Law Students
  • Uniform Commercial Code

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (27)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ▼  2012 (34)
    • ▼  December (5)
      • Plaintiffs Lose Coverage Case Based Upon Limitatio...
      • Duty to Defend - Long Delay Before Insurer Is Noti...
      • Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Account Stated Theo...
      • The Account Stated - A Useful Legal Tool for Credi...
      • Appellate Court Upholds Personal Guarantee
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2011 (40)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2010 (36)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2009 (18)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
  • ►  2008 (1)
    • ►  September (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile