Attorney Jameson Andrew Young's Legal Cases

Business

Dugdale, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.

Jun 07, 2011

OUTCOME: Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Alcatel's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages.

This litigation stems from a telecommunications deal gone bad. Alcatel manufactures and sells telecommunications products, and Dugdale is a reseller of telecommunications products and services. Dugdale ... alleges that Alcatel made false promises to it regarding Alcatel's intention [*4] to subcontract maintenance for 50,000 phones on the Advocate Healthcare System ("Advocate System") to Dugdale. Dugdale and Alcatel entered into the Business Partner Program Agreement ("BPPA") in January 2005 and, pursuant to that contract, Dugdale became a non-exclusive reseller of Alcatel products. The BPPA does not mention the Advocate System. Alcatel and Dugdale entered into the Value Added Reseller Agreement ("VARA") in April 2006. The VARA does not mention the Advocate System. Dugdale alleges that Alcatel provided defective telecommunications products to it under both the BPPA and the VARA despite representations made as to the products quality.

Appeals

Trustcorp Mortage Co. v. Metro Mortgage Co., Inc.

May 30, 2007

OUTCOME: The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Appellant wholesale mortgage lender sought review of the order of St. Joseph Superior Court (Indiana) which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of appellee mort ... gage broker. The trial court concluded the broker did not breach the warranty provisions of a buy/sell agreement with the lender. The parties entered into a buy/sell agreement. The lender's policy and procedure manual was incorporated into the agreement. The broker originated, processed, and closed a loan. The lender approved the loan and subsequently purchased it from the broker. The lender sold the loan to a secondary market investor. Approximately two years later, the loan went into foreclosure. It was determined that there were deficiencies in the appraisal. The lender, who was required to repurchase the loan, demanded that the broker repurchase the loan. The broker refused. The trial court concluded that the broker followed the guidelines for hiring an appraiser as set out in the lender's manual, and that the appraisal, on its face, did not indicate any defects either in the appraisal itself, or in the performance of the appraiser. The appellate court concluded that the contract language was ambiguous. The broker was not in the business of performing property appraisals. To hold the broker responsible for any and all unknown or hidden defects contained in the appraisal would in effect require the broker to become an appraiser. That result, clearly, was not intended by the parties.

Jameson Andrew Young's Legal Cases (2)

Dugdale, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.

Trustcorp Mortage Co. v. Metro Mortgage Co., Inc.