OK, it finally passed.
You live with the contractual terms you knowingly agreed with.
Hartford Life principals argue that they're simply trying to inject some common sense and boundaries regarding reasonable parameters germane to a key contract provision in select life insurance contracts inked with California policyholders.
It was obviously important that the contractual dispute between a Southern California municipal transportation entity and a bus company providing riding services to approximately 800,000 customers each day get resolved, and in an optimal manner.
This could get ugly.
Contracts are supposed to be legally binding agreements. What is a college professor to do, however, when his or her employer backs out on their half of the agreement? It is just such a situation that professors of San Francisco State University in California are facing, and they have gone public with their claims of breach of contract.
We discussed in overview fashion the rationale and parameters of non-competition agreements in a recent blog post.
The employer/worker relationship is both reciprocal and symbiotic: Each party has distinct and singular needs of its own, yet both need each other.
When a person thinks about contract disputes, he or she probably thinks about builders who don't meet the needs of a homeowner or a city that doesn't like the work going on in a neighborhood. There are many kinds of contract disputes that can affect people, though, like this case brings up.
Before a person works with an attorney to resolve a contract dispute through litigation, he or she should consider using other methods to make sure all the possibilities of the case are covered. If the parties can work out their differences outside court, it can be much easier on both. The first approach is always to try to work out the dispute through simple discussion. Many disputes arise from misunderstandings. Too often those misunderstandings become emotional and the parties lock into positions. This is when other approaches might be warranted.