215 F. Supp. 2d 308 - DynCorp v. GTE Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Special damages, in the context of commercial fraud, arise in consequence of a breach and seek to compensate a plaintiff for losses other than the diminished value of the promised performance. Bibeault v. Advanced Health Corp., No. 97 Civ. 6026, 2002 WL 24305 , , 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 225, (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2002) (citing New York cases). The circumstances giving rise to such damages must reasonably be anticipated at the time the contract was made. Id. In Deerfield Communications Corp. v. Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 954 , 510 N.Y.S.2d 88 , 502 N.E.2d 1003 (1986), the seller was forbidden to sell certain aerosol products because of federal regulations, and was interested to sell the products to a company that represented it would sell the products in overseas markets other than those specifically proscribed. The representation did not became a covenant of the contract, and the buyer disregarded its representation that it would not sell the products in the proscribed areas. The New York Court of Appeals held that a fraud action could be maintained, ruling that the representation was neither “collateral” nor “du-plicative” of the contract, and that the seller was seeking, not the diminished value of the contract, but special damages arising from its need to locate, repurchase and destroy the offending merchandise. Id. at 956 , 510 N.Y.S.2d 88 , 502 N.E.2d 1003 . Cf. VTech Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Tech. Inc., 172 F.Supp.2d 435, 440-41 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (damages flowing from wil”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 311 F. Supp. 2d 419 - Great Earth International Franchising Corp. v. Milks Development

2. “In the case at bar, unlike other cases cited by plaintiff, the Purchase Agreement made clear that [the seller] would have “no liability or indemnification obligation to Buyer,” “[e]xcept for the representations and warranties contained in this Agreement.” This condition of exclusivity was sounded throughout the Purchase Agreement, in the sections providing DynCorp’s disclaimers, in the sections limiting damage recoveries, and generally, as my citations a few pages earlier make clear. DynCorp’s claims of fraud concerning the breach of contractual warranties are not “collateral or extraneous” to these terms and conditions; rather, they contradict them. If I were to rule otherwise, the strong New York policy, giving autonomy to contracting parties to allocate risks, and rights, obligations, warranties and disclaimers, as they see fit, would be compromised.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 727 F. Supp. 2d 199 - Koch Industries, Inc. v. AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

3. “[a] limitation on liability provision in a contract represents the parties’ Agreement on the allocation of risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed, which the courts should honor.... [The parties] may later regret their assumption of the risks of non-performance in this manner; but the courts let them lie on the bed they made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 273 F. Supp. 2d 436 - Net2Globe Intern., Inc. v. Time Warner Telecom of NY