Spin Doctor Golf, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that fixed payments are not required for a continuing contract
• parties' agreement constituted continuing contract and claims based on breaches within four years before date suit was filed were not barred by statute of limitations
• Paymentech is required only to forward money for Spin Doctor credit card payments actually received
• “We hold that the parties’ agreement constituted a continuing contract and claims based on breaches within four years before . . . the date the lawsuit was filed, are not barred by limitations.”
• “[D]etailed knowledge of the golf club manufacturing industry is not relevant to a profits analysis. The type of industry is not relevant to the accounting principles employed in conducting a lost profits analysis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).