Archive: February 5, 2008

1
Potential Pitfalls in Australian Dispute Resolution Clauses
2
Municipal Authority’s Claim Against Surety for Bad Faith Falls Short

Potential Pitfalls in Australian Dispute Resolution Clauses

Seeley Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Electra Air Conditioning BV, 2008 WL 276689, [2008] FCA 29 (Fed. Ct. Austl.)

This Australian case illustrates the issues, in that jurisdiction, which can turn on niceties in the drafting of dispute resolution clauses.  Seeley, a distributor of air conditioners sued their manufacturer, Electra, in the Australian Federal Court for breach of contract, seeking a declaration and summary judgment.  Electra sought to restrain the proceedings on the basis of an agreement to arbitrate any issue between the parties before a single arbitrator seated in Melbourne under the IAMA Rules.  However, the relevant clause also provided that nothing in it “prevents a party from seeking injunctive or declaratory relief in the case of a material breach or threatened breach of this Agreement.”
Read More

Municipal Authority’s Claim Against Surety for Bad Faith Falls Short

Intercon Constr., Inc. v. Williamsport Mun. Water Auth., 2008 WL 239554 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2008)

This case involved standard breach of contract claims and counterclaims between a general contractor and a public municipal authority.  In addition, the municipal authority also sued a performance bond surety on claims of bad faith. The municipal authority alleged that the manner in which the surety investigated and denied coverage under the performance bond, and its withholding of certain information from the authority, constituted bad faith under the Pennsylvania bad faith insurance statute. Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.