CAN THE CONTINUOUS BREACH THEORY SAVE YOUR TIME-BARRED COMPLAINT?
Suit was brought in federal court, which then referred a certified question to the South Carolina Supreme Court to resolve whether the state recognized the continuous breach theory. The Court cited an example of a construction contract; if a contractor applied the wrong color paint to the bathrooms...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Commercial Law World 2022-10, Vol.36 (4), p.34-0_2 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 0_2 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 34 |
container_title | Commercial Law World |
container_volume | 36 |
creator | Bernstein, Robert A |
description | Suit was brought in federal court, which then referred a certified question to the South Carolina Supreme Court to resolve whether the state recognized the continuous breach theory. The Court cited an example of a construction contract; if a contractor applied the wrong color paint to the bathrooms in a construction project, the failure to bring suit for that breach would not prevent the owner from pursuing a claim if the roof caved in five years later. The Court did state that the determination whether the subsequent breaches could be deemed a new obligation is a matter of contract law, and as with any contract, the court must first look to the terms of the contract and enforce the terms between the parties. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_3061364879</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3061364879</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_reports_30613648793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0sLCw0LUwMDDgYOAqLs4yMDA2Nzez4GRwdHb0UwjxcFVw9vcL8fQL9Q8NVnAKcnV09gCJ-gdFKgQ7hrkqRPqHBimEePq66jo5BgW5ugCV-wb4OHr6hdjzMLCmJeYUp_JCaW4GJTfXEGcP3YKi_MLS1OKS-KLUgvyikuJ4YwMzQ2MzEwtzS2OiFAEAcGcxlQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3061364879</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>CAN THE CONTINUOUS BREACH THEORY SAVE YOUR TIME-BARRED COMPLAINT?</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Bernstein, Robert A</creator><creatorcontrib>Bernstein, Robert A</creatorcontrib><description>Suit was brought in federal court, which then referred a certified question to the South Carolina Supreme Court to resolve whether the state recognized the continuous breach theory. The Court cited an example of a construction contract; if a contractor applied the wrong color paint to the bathrooms in a construction project, the failure to bring suit for that breach would not prevent the owner from pursuing a claim if the roof caved in five years later. The Court did state that the determination whether the subsequent breaches could be deemed a new obligation is a matter of contract law, and as with any contract, the court must first look to the terms of the contract and enforce the terms between the parties.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0888-8000</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: Commercial Law League of America</publisher><subject>Breach of contract ; Construction contracts ; Discovery rule ; Federal court decisions ; Jurisdiction</subject><ispartof>Commercial Law World, 2022-10, Vol.36 (4), p.34-0_2</ispartof><rights>Copyright Commercial Law League of America Oct-Dec 2022</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>312,780,784,791</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bernstein, Robert A</creatorcontrib><title>CAN THE CONTINUOUS BREACH THEORY SAVE YOUR TIME-BARRED COMPLAINT?</title><title>Commercial Law World</title><description>Suit was brought in federal court, which then referred a certified question to the South Carolina Supreme Court to resolve whether the state recognized the continuous breach theory. The Court cited an example of a construction contract; if a contractor applied the wrong color paint to the bathrooms in a construction project, the failure to bring suit for that breach would not prevent the owner from pursuing a claim if the roof caved in five years later. The Court did state that the determination whether the subsequent breaches could be deemed a new obligation is a matter of contract law, and as with any contract, the court must first look to the terms of the contract and enforce the terms between the parties.</description><subject>Breach of contract</subject><subject>Construction contracts</subject><subject>Discovery rule</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><issn>0888-8000</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0sLCw0LUwMDDgYOAqLs4yMDA2Nzez4GRwdHb0UwjxcFVw9vcL8fQL9Q8NVnAKcnV09gCJ-gdFKgQ7hrkqRPqHBimEePq66jo5BgW5ugCV-wb4OHr6hdjzMLCmJeYUp_JCaW4GJTfXEGcP3YKi_MLS1OKS-KLUgvyikuJ4YwMzQ2MzEwtzS2OiFAEAcGcxlQ</recordid><startdate>20221001</startdate><enddate>20221001</enddate><creator>Bernstein, Robert A</creator><general>Commercial Law League of America</general><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20221001</creationdate><title>CAN THE CONTINUOUS BREACH THEORY SAVE YOUR TIME-BARRED COMPLAINT?</title><author>Bernstein, Robert A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_30613648793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Breach of contract</topic><topic>Construction contracts</topic><topic>Discovery rule</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bernstein, Robert A</creatorcontrib><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Commercial Law World</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bernstein, Robert A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>CAN THE CONTINUOUS BREACH THEORY SAVE YOUR TIME-BARRED COMPLAINT?</atitle><jtitle>Commercial Law World</jtitle><date>2022-10-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>34</spage><epage>0_2</epage><pages>34-0_2</pages><issn>0888-8000</issn><abstract>Suit was brought in federal court, which then referred a certified question to the South Carolina Supreme Court to resolve whether the state recognized the continuous breach theory. The Court cited an example of a construction contract; if a contractor applied the wrong color paint to the bathrooms in a construction project, the failure to bring suit for that breach would not prevent the owner from pursuing a claim if the roof caved in five years later. The Court did state that the determination whether the subsequent breaches could be deemed a new obligation is a matter of contract law, and as with any contract, the court must first look to the terms of the contract and enforce the terms between the parties.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>Commercial Law League of America</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0888-8000 |
ispartof | Commercial Law World, 2022-10, Vol.36 (4), p.34-0_2 |
issn | 0888-8000 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_3061364879 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Business Source Complete |
subjects | Breach of contract Construction contracts Discovery rule Federal court decisions Jurisdiction |
title | CAN THE CONTINUOUS BREACH THEORY SAVE YOUR TIME-BARRED COMPLAINT? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T15%3A55%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=CAN%20THE%20CONTINUOUS%20BREACH%20THEORY%20SAVE%20YOUR%20TIME-BARRED%20COMPLAINT?&rft.jtitle=Commercial%20Law%20World&rft.au=Bernstein,%20Robert%20A&rft.date=2022-10-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=34&rft.epage=0_2&rft.pages=34-0_2&rft.issn=0888-8000&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E3061364879%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3061364879&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |