Because of the confusion caused by defective contract language, it takes longer than it should to close deals, so you waste time and money and potentially hurt your competitiveness. 540 F2d 527 Morgan v. J McDonough. Henderson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 268 N. 129, 150 S. E. 2d 17, 19 (1966). 540 F2d 219 Mobil Oil Corporation v. Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union. Exhibit H, a copy of Mr. Lawson's answering letter to Kimball & Clark, dated May 14, 1956, is as follows: "This is in reply to your letter dated May 10, 1956 concerning winter damage to fall seeded wheat in Douglas County. In Felder v. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 146 F. 2d 638, 640, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the principle just stated in a case involving cotton crop insurance, by the same corporation named as defendant here. Chaotic verb structures consistently afflict traditional contract language. Fixing Your Contracts: What Training in Contract Drafting Can and Can’t Do. 540 F2d 818 Pressley v. L Wainwright. The policy did provide two means for FEMA to waive the 60 day requirement: the general waiver provision requiring express written consent of the Federal Insurance Administrator of Article 9, Paragraph D and the specific waiver provision for the 60 day proof of loss requirement in Article 9, Paragraph J(7).
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
"We may, at our option, waive the requirement for the completion and filing of a proof of loss in certain cases, in which event you will be required to sign, and, at our option, swear to an adjuster's report of the loss which includes information about your loss and the damages sustained, which is needed by us in order to adjust your claim. Exhibit I is a copy of a letter to Kimball & Clark from the Washington office of the defendant, dated May 21, 1956. Attached to Mr. Federal crop insurance corporation. Clark's affidavit as exhibits E and F are documents designated in the affidavit respectively as "rejection of the claim presented by Ralph McLean", and "rejection of the claim presented by Lloyd McLean. " 785, 786, 101 1468, 67 685 (1981) (holding that government agent's advice that misinformed plaintiff that she was not eligible for social security benefits did not rise to level of affirmative misconduct that might reach a serious question as to whether the government might be estopped from insisting on compliance with a valid regulation required to receive benefits); Federal Crop Ins.
540 F2d 478 Mogle v. Sevier County School District. 540 F2d 1011 People of Territory of Guam v. J Olsen. 2 F3d 301 McClees v. E Shalala. Modification of contract. 540 F2d 543 Ito Corporation of New England v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission W J. 2 F3d 168 Yha Inc v. Howard v federal crop insurance corp.com. National Labor Relations Board. The amended complaint also contains the following paragraph: "That, depending on the yield of the 1956 crop as reseeded, the above mentioned repudiation of the contract by defendant may result in further damage to the plaintiffs in an amount equal to the difference between the actual amount harvested and the insured amount of wheat and that in order to perfectly protect the plaintiffs the Court should direct that the insurance be reinstated.
Federal Crop Insurance V Merrill
540 F2d 71 Lehigh and New England Railway Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission. The three suits are not distinguishable factually so far as we are concerned here and involve identical questions of law. So your company would certainly benefit if your personnel were to become better-informed consumers of contract language. Nothing we say here should preclude FCIC from asserting as a defense that the plowing or disking under of the stalks caused damage to FCIC if, for example, the amount of the loss was thereby made more difficult or impossible to ascertain whether the plowing or disking under was done with bad purpose or innocently. There has not been called to my attention any regulation, statute, or provision of the insurance contract authorizing payment of the cost of reseeding an insured farmer's wheat crop. Contracts Keyed to Kuney. 540 F2d 821 Hradesky v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
2 F3d 1160 Debardeleben v. L Matthews. • Courts must look realistically at what was bargained for and regular business practices and commercial life. Could these conflicting directives affect the reasonableness of plaintiffs' interpretation of defendant's prohibition upon plowing under the stalks prior to adjustment? 2 F3d 801 First Dakota National Bank v. St Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. 2 F3d 163 Rogers v. Board of Education of Buena Vista Schools. A waiver can be retracted. 2 F3d 406 Anderson v. United States. Sets found in the same folder. 2 F3d 1149 Cashman v. C O Barnes. 2 F3d 403 Kahn v. Kahn. While the policy and letter request that claimants act as soon as possible, they also place a 60 day limit on the time claimants have available to make their claims, absent a waiver. Conditions Flashcards. 389, 409, 37 S. Ct. 387, 391, 61 L. Ed. 540 F2d 222 Ryan v. Aurora City Board of Education. DRIVER, Chief Judge.
Howard V Federal Crop Insurance Corp.Com
2 F3d 24 Carte Blanche Pte Ltd v. Diners Club International Inc. 2 F3d 241 United States v. One Mercedes Benz Roadster Sec Vin Wdbba48d3ha064462. Howard v federal crop insurance corp. ltd. How does a court go about determining whether such language constitutes an obligation or a condition? Its pertinent part is as follows: "Our Washington State Director has forwarded for our consideration your letter of May 10, 1956, in regard to claims which several Douglas County wheat farmers expect to litigate, and a copy of his reply dated May 14, 1956. Thus, in order to show they even may be entitled to equitably estop FEMA, the plaintiffs must not only satisfy the traditional requirements for equitable estoppel, 6 but also they must show affirmative misconduct by FEMA that exceeds conduct the Court has already deemed acceptable. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at Thank you.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs hired Thomas Harwell, a structural engineer, to assess the damage to the home from the hurricane-induced flood. 2 F3d 953 Penny v. W Sullivan. A fixture of commercial contracts is use of the word efforts to modify contract obligations. 540 F2d 1084 Blackwell v. Cities Service Oil Co. 540 F2d 1084 Bradco Oil & Gas Co. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. 540 F2d 1084 Brigmon v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. 540 F2d 1084 Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. Buchwald. 2 F3d 1156 Cifu v. Thurman. Since we find for the plaintiffs as to the construction of the policy, we express no opinion on the procedural questions. 2 F3d 1149 Giles v. W Murray.
Howard V Federal Crop Insurance Corp. Ltd
Stop Using the Phrase Best Efforts. Many people don't like change or creativity. The statement in proof of loss shall be submitted not later than sixty days after the time of loss, unless the time for submitting the claim is extended in writing by the Corporation. 2 F3d 40 Abnathya v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. 2 F3d 403 Chambers v. Nyc Housing Preser.
540 F2d 548 Miller Ibc v. Wells Fargo Bank International Corp. 540 F2d 566 United States v. W Jonas. The parties do not dispute that at that time, Hughes would not acknowledge that the hurricane was accompanied by waves and, therefore, only inspected the first level of the home for damage. Paragraph 6 starts with the language: "The assured agrees, by acceptance of this policy, that the foregoing conditions precedent relate to matters material to the acceptance of the risk by the insurer. " Rule: where it is doubtful whether words create a promise or an express condition, they are usually interpreted as creating a promise, thereby avoiding a forfeiture. 219, 226, 59 861, 83 1249 (1939); Baca v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 326 F. 2d 189, 191 (5th Cir.