Fink v. Time Warner Cable

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a plaintiff must “allege the essential terms in nonconclusory language” and that “simple characterization[s] of the promise” do not suffice to establish the specific terms of the alleged oral agreement
• dismissing implied-in-fact contract claim reliant on advertisements to supply the material terms because the advertisements “do not contain sufficient : specific, concrete, factual representations”
• dismissing unjust enrichment claim that was based on “general advertising claims,” “amorphous, unmeasurable promises,” and mere puffery
• granting judgment on the pleadings to Time Warner on plaintiffs § 349(a
• “[A] court need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a party’s reply brief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).