<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Contract</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/contract/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:57:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Banking Practices ‘Bad Faith’ Claim Survives&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/banking-practices-bad-faith-claim-survives/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/banking-practices-bad-faith-claim-survives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff company, who is suing defendant bank for refusing to honor a Debt Settlement Agreement settling $9 million in debts for $3 million, may sue for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by acting in bad faith and against usual and prudent business and banking practices in determining that plaintiff’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/banking-practices-bad-faith-claim-survives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud Claim Survives in Modular Home Suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/fraud-claim-survives-in-modular-home-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/fraud-claim-survives-in-modular-home-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Thomas D. Horne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loudoun County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74345</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff who alleges shoddy craftsmanship, structural deficiencies and an absence of oversight in the installation of a modular home may pursue her fraud claim against a single defendant, but her other claims are barred by the economic loss rule, says a Loudoun County Circuit Court. Plaintiff alleges that on May 5, 2011, she entered [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/fraud-claim-survives-in-modular-home-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bond Principal ‘Necessary Party’ for Bond Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/bond-principal-necessary-party-for-bond-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/bond-principal-necessary-party-for-bond-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Michael F. Devine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although plaintiff Johnson Controls Inc., who provided materials to defendant Norair Engineering for a construction project on which Norair was a subcontractor, named Norair as a defendant in plaintiff’s suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien, plaintiff failed to name Norair as a defendant in the specific count to enforce the substituted bond, and because Norair [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/bond-principal-necessary-party-for-bond-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Malpractice Suit Against Bankruptcy Lawyer Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/malpractice-suit-against-bankruptcy-lawyer-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/malpractice-suit-against-bankruptcy-lawyer-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fauquier County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Jeffrey W. Parker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A former client’s legal malpractice action against his bankruptcy lawyer is time-barred because the alleged act – persuading the client to sell his home to the lawyer, who later sold it at a profit – occurred after termination of the representation on July 7, 2005, and the Fauquier County Circuit Court dismisses the suit. Plaintiff’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/malpractice-suit-against-bankruptcy-lawyer-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contract Assignee May Sue for Breach&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/contract-assignee-may-sue-for-breach/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/contract-assignee-may-sue-for-breach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 17:12:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Glen E. Conrad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Charlottesville U.S. District Court says plaintiff building contractor, who was assigned a contract for construction of an office for an auto body shop in Culpeper, may sue defendant North Carolina company, for breach of contract based on alleged faulty workmanship that resulted in water damage and mold problems that required the contractor to compensate [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/contract-assignee-may-sue-for-breach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Facilities’ Charges Not Authorized by ICAs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/facilities-charges-not-authorized-by-icas/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/facilities-charges-not-authorized-by-icas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Claude M. Hilton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this suit by CoreTel Virginia LLC against Verizon Virginia LLC, the Alexandria U.S. District Court grants partial summary judgment to Verizon in this dispute over certain charges under interconnection agreements entered into under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 compels incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) like Verizon to negotiate contracts, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/facilities-charges-not-authorized-by-icas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Local Carriers Win Telecomm Case Against Sprint&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit upholds judgment for “CenturyLink” plaintiffs, a group of 19 local exchange carriers that entered into interconnection agreements with defendant Sprint Communications under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in plaintiffs’ breach of contract action filed after Sprint began to withhold payments under the agreement; the appellate court also upholds the district court judge’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Engineer sued for leaving with data&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/25/engineer-sued-for-leaving-with-data/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/25/engineer-sued-for-leaving-with-data/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mosby G. Perrow III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lynchburg Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74024</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A trade secrets skirmish in a Lynchburg courtroom has become a sideshow in a high-stakes battle over a contract to manage the nation’s atomic bomb factory. While giant corporations jousted for the prized $22 billion federal contract, a former government overseer at the Texas nuclear weapons plant stood before Lynchburg Circuit Judge Mosby G. Perrow [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/25/engineer-sued-for-leaving-with-data/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Tort Claim Against FCA Defense Lawyer&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/no-tort-claim-against-fca-defense-lawyer/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/no-tort-claim-against-fca-defense-lawyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:25:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74004</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint against defendant lawyer who represented plaintiff’s former employer in plaintiff’s False Claims Act suit, seeking to hold the lawyer liable for alleged misrepresentations the lawyer made over three years ago during that FCA litigation. Plaintiff seeks at least $3 million in damages under theories of abuse of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/no-tort-claim-against-fca-defense-lawyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Email Not Enough to Prove Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/email-not-enough-to-prove-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/email-not-enough-to-prove-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:23:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74000</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although the parties continued to negotiate terms for defendant’s promotion of a concert featuring plaintiff Wiz Khalifa at George Mason University, with defendant holding out for plaintiff to release a new album, an email from plaintiff’s agent to defendant indicated the parties would wait until formal execution of the attached contract, and the Alexandria U.S. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/email-not-enough-to-prove-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
