Gloucester Holding Corp. v. U.S. Tape & Sticky Products, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the court can consider “the content of documents that are integral to or are incorporated by reference into the counterclaim”
• holding choice-of-law clause did not apply because it “does not claim to cover litigation that arises out of or relates to” the contract
• rejecting contention that justifiable reliance was an element of breach of contract as “simply incorrect”
• rejecting contention that justifiable reliance was an element of breach of contract as “simply incorrect”
• clause stating that choice-of-law provision “applies to the ‘rights of the parties’ derived from the contract” is not broad enough to cover tort claims related to contract
• “Reliance is not an element of a claim for indemnification” for “breach of any of the representations or warranties in [the agreement] . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).