Jonson v. Speizman

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter”
• dismissing negligence claims because there was no violation of a “legal duty independent of the contract”
• “[A] simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated.”
• existence of valid and enforceable contract governing subject matter precludes recovery in quasi-contract for events arising out of the same subject matter
• “Merely charging a breach of a ‘duty of due care,’ employing language familiar to tort law, does not, without more, transform a simple breach of contract into a tort claim”
• “[A] simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).