In the Louisiana business world, it's not uncommon for workers and management to disagree from time to time. Whether issues pertain to wages, work hours and overtime, or health care benefits, a contract dispute can place a company's bottom line at risk. Productivity and profitability are easily adversely affected when contract disagreements remain unresolved for too long.
Louisiana business people often enter formal agreements as part of their transactions. In fact, in most business arrangements, contracts are integral components that are easily customizable and useful to protect the interests of those involved in a particular service, employment or purchase transaction. If one party accuses another party of a breach of contract, however, what was once an amicable business connection may become contentious.
When government entities oppose one another, things can get pretty messy. Louisiana business owners may relate to a current contract dispute raging in another state. Basically, two parties signed an agreement, which the governor of the state approved; however, a circuit judge has ruled that the contract was not legal.
A flood that occurred on Christmas 2015 in another state reportedly caused a married couple to sustain substantial losses. The filed a claim with Allstate Insurance Company. The man and woman were upset to learn their claim had been denied and are now suing Allstate for breach of contract. Many Louisiana insurance clients may relate to the situation.
Some time back in 2014, Facebook purchased the Oculus company best known for,"Rift," a virtual reality headset device with which many Louisiana residents might be familiar. A problem arose regarding the product that included allegations against Oculus (and therefore, also against Facebook) regarding deceptive trade practices. Another company, ZeniMax, was the one making the accusations, saying Oculus founder, Palmer Luckey, stole technology codes and other information after leaving ZeniMax to work for Oculus.
Most government workers and others in Louisiana understand that business relationships sometimes suffer and disagreements arise that can have long-lasting negative effects on many people. A contract dispute that's been raging for two years in another state is a perfect example of this type of contentious situation. This particular disagreement involves a governor and tens of thousands of state-employed workers.
Many Louisiana residents were among other NFL football fans who recently enjoyed the 2017 Super Bowl. Although the Rams were not one of the two contenders this time around, their fans are undoubtedly already looking forward to next season when they and all other teams will have another shot at the championship title. In the meantime, the off-season is often filled with various other types of issues, such as draft choices or complications that surface when a contract dispute arises.
An earlier post on this blog discussed NASCAR superstar Danica Patrick's recent disagreement with racing company management. Since then, another contract dispute has surfaced involving Kurt Busch, an American stock car driver many Louisiana race fans like to follow. Sports Management Network is suing him for more than $1 million, saying he has failed to pay required fees upon termination of his contract.
The issue before the Fifth Circuit in In re: Limitation Complaint of Larry Doiron, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3675 (5th Cir., Feb 27, 2017, revised opinion) was whether the contract was a maritime one. The contract was one to perform flow-back services to improve the performance of an offshore natural-gas well when performance eventually required the use of a crane barge. While the Court applied the Davis factors, a new test was urged.
NASCAR fans in Louisiana and worldwide enjoy following the racing escapades of superstar driver, Danica Patrick. Some of those fans might also be following a current legal battle between one of Patrick's sponsors, Nature's Bakery, and Stewart-Haas Racing. The latter claims the former has committed a material breach of contract.
Recently, in Wade v. Clemco Industries, Corp., et al, No. 16-502 (E.D.La. Feb. 2, 2017). the court considered whether a seaman can recover non-pecuniary damages against a non-employer third-party tortfeasor under general maritime law.