The implied covenant is "breached only when one party seeks to prevent the contract's performance or to withhold its benefits." Id.įurther, Monotype argues that ITC's reliance on Wakefield is misplaced. In other words, the implied covenant would aid the explicit terms of the agreement, and not impose an obligation inconsistent with those terms. The court stated that under New York law such a covenant is implied only when consistent with the other express terms of the agreement. In Metropolitan Life, the court was asked to imply a covenant of good faith into an indenture agreement. Monotype argues that ITC, by attempting to invoke an implied covenant of good faith, is seeking to have the court create an additional benefit for which ITC did not bargain. Monotype responds that the Agreement between them, quoted above, contains express provisions proscribing certain conduct thus where the parties have expressly and specifically defined what conduct is prohibited, broader language cannot be implied. He contended that under New York law a termination so motivated violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing of his commission agreement. Wakefield argued that he was fired because NTI wanted to avoid paying him those commissions. Wakefield brought a contract claim against NTI alleging he was denied commissions for sales performed before his termination. Wakefield was an employee who was fired when the company he worked for, Danray, Inc., was acquired by Northern Telecom, Inc. Wakefield involved a dispute concerning a commission agreement. 7 In Wakefield, the court acknowledged that "mplied contract provisions may coexist with express conditions which seemingly negate them where common expectations or the relationship of the parties as structured by the contract so dictate." Id. ITC finds the basis of this legal principle in Wakefield v. ITC states that every contract has an implied obligation that neither party will act to injure the other party's right to receive the fruits of the contract. ITC argues that the district court erred in refusing to instruct on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which ITC sees implicitly contained in the Subscriber Agreement. A litigant is entitled to an instruction concerning its theory of the case if it is supported by evidence and law. City of Concord, 956 F.2d 204, 206 (9th Cir.1992) (citing United States v.
MONOTYPE CORSIVA HISTORY TRIAL
"Whether a jury instruction misstates the elements that must be proved at trial is a question of law that is reviewed de novo." Caballero v. The court held that even if the report did have relevance, it would be prejudicial and would confuse the jury. Second, when Berlow made his initial statement that the Monotype typefaces were copies, he had never seen the actual Monotype typefaces. The court therefore held that this did not represent a useable standard for opinion testimony which would assist the jury.
MONOTYPE CORSIVA HISTORY CODE
First, the court explained Berlow's opinion was based on a moral code of the industry and his own beliefs as to certain typefaces. The district court held, however, that the Berlow report could not be admitted under Rule 403. Then ITC argued that it was a memorandum that should fall within the business records exception. At trial, ITC first argued this report was an admission by a party-opponent, but ITC could not prove Berlow was an agent for Monotype. Berlow testified that the Monotype typefaces had the same width metrics as the ITC, were "functional equivalents," and violated the "code moral" of ATypeI, a typographical trade association. Subsequently Berlow contacted Steve Shaiman of Microsoft by E-mail and stated he had "finally determined for certain that some of the faces that we are being asked to work on, are not legitimate versions." Berlow then expressed his opinion that Monotype had copied the ITC typefaces.
ITC's Vice President contacted Berlow and told him that Monotype had made copies of ITC's typefaces.
0 kommentar(er)
