Friedman v. Katzner

24 Citing cases

  1. Family of Care Real Estate Holding Co. v. Chapman Prop.

    Civil Action DKC 23-574 (D. Md. Jun. 25, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    If Purchaser repudiated the APA, then Sellers' obligation to refrain from intentionally or knowingly impairing Purchaser's ability to obtain license approval would be excused. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Madison Three, Inc., 83 F.Supp.2d 602, 607-08 (D.Md. 2000) (first citing Friedman v. Katzner, 139 Md. 195, 114 A. 884, 886-87 (1921); then citing C. W. Blomquist & Co. v. Cap. Area Realty Invs., 270 Md. 486, 494 (1973)) (noting that the defense of anticipatory repudiation “excuses one party to a contract from its performance obligations upon an unequivocal act of repudiation of the contract by the other party[]”).

  2. Choice Hotels International v. Madison Three

    83 F. Supp. 2d 602 (D. Md. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    Explaining that, under Maryland law, the burden of proving an affirmative defense in a breach of contract case lies with the defendant

    See Defs.' Opp. Mot. Summ. Judg. at 7 (citing, but not discussing, String v. Steven Dev. Corp., 269 Md. 569, 307 A.2d 713, 717 (1973)). This defense excuses one party to a contract from its performance obligations upon an unequivocal act of repudiation of the contract by the other party. See, e.g., Friedman v. Katzner, 139 Md. 195, 114 A. 884, 886-87 (1921) ("[W]hen in anticipation of the time of performance one definitely and specifically refuses to do something which he is obligated to do, so that it amounts to a refusal to go on with the contract, it may be treated as a breach by anticipation, and the other party may, at his election, treat the contract as abandoned, and act accordingly. This principle is well settled. . . ."); C.W. Blomquist Co. v. Capital Area Realty Investors, 270 Md. 486, 311 A.2d 787 (1973) (stating that a breach may be anticipatory in nature if, prior to the time of performance, one definitely and specifically refuses to do something which it is obligated to do).

  3. In re WBZE, Inc.

    220 B.R. 568 (D. Md. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    The refusal to perform, i.e. the repudiation of, the contract must be positive and unconditional. Id.; see also Friedman v. Katzner, 139 Md. 195, 114 A. 884 (1921).          But there is more.

  4. FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Orszag

    Civ. 23-3200 PJM (D. Md. Dec. 5, 2024)

    A breach .. . may be inferred from the ‘refusal of a party to recognize the existence of a contract, or the doing of something inconsistent with its existence.'” C. W. Blomquist & Co. v. Cap. Area Realty Ims., 270 Md. 486, 494 (1973) (quoting Friedman v. Katzner, 139 Md. 195, 201 (1921)). Here, FTI has alleged sufficient facts for the Court to conclude that Orszag plausibly breached the Non-Solicitation provision by, at a minimum, threatening that his departure from FTI would be followed by 800 other Compass Lexecon employees.

  5. MRI Software LLC v. Univ. of Minn. Found. - Dinnaken Hous.

    1:24-cv-00485 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 18, 2024)

    Under Ohio law, a breach of contract occurs where a party fails, “without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of a contract and may be inferred from the ‘refusal of a party to recognize the existence of a contract, or the doing of something inconsistent with its existence.'” National City Bank v. Erskine & Sons, Inc., 158 Ohio St. 450, 461, 110 N.E.2d 598, 603 (1953) (quoting Friedman v. Katzner, 139 Md. 195, 114 A. 884, 886-87 (1921)). In other words, “a breach of contract action accrues when the breach occurs or when the complaining party suffers actual damages as a result of the breach.”

  6. Horsetail Techs. v. Del. State Police Fed. Credit Union

    Civil Action No. ELH-18-556 (D. Md. Jun. 19, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Indeed, Maryland law recognizes that "when 'in anticipation of the time of performance one definitely and specifically refuses to do something which he is obligated to do, so that it amounts to a refusal to go on with the contract, it may be treated as a breach by anticipation, and the other party may, at his election, treat the contract as abandoned, and act accordingly.'" C.W. Blomquist & Co., 270 Md. at 494, 311 A.2d at 791 (quoting Friedman v. Katzner, 139 Md. 195, 114 A. 884, 887 (1921)). III.

  7. Transamerica Premier Life Ins. Co. v. Selman & Co.

    401 F. Supp. 3d 576 (D. Md. 2019)   Cited 17 times

    Indeed, Maryland law recognizes that "when ‘in anticipation of the time of performance one definitely and specifically refuses to do something which he is obligated to do, so that it amounts to a refusal to go on with the contract, it may be treated as a breach by anticipation, and the other party may, at his election, treat the contract as abandoned, and act accordingly.’ " C. W. Blomquist & Co. , 270 Md. at 494, 311 A.2d at 791 (quoting Friedman v. Katzner , 139 Md. 195, 114 A. 884, 887 (1921) ).

  8. Peach State Roofing, Inc. v. Kirlin Builders, LLC

    CIVIL ACT. NO. 1:15cv526-CSC (WO) (M.D. Ala. Jun. 22, 2018)

    excuses one party to a contract from its performance obligations upon an unequivocal act of repudiation of the contract by the other party. See, e.g., Friedman v. Katzner, 139 Md. 195, 114 A. 884, 886-87 (1921) ("[W]hen in anticipation of the time of performance one definitely and specifically refuses to do something which he is obligated to do, so that it amounts to a refusal to go on with the contract, it may be treated as a breach by anticipation, and the other party may, at his election, treat the contract as abandoned, and act accordingly. This principle is well settled.

  9. Airport Square Holdings, LLC v. GCCFC 2007-GG9 Colomary Facilities, LLC

    Civil No. JFM-16-02883 (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2017)   Cited 2 times
    Reciting the same five elements for fraudulent inducement (citing Lawley v. Northam, No. ELH-10-1074, 2011 WL 6013279, at *9 (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2011))

    Maryland courts have defined breach of contract as a "failure without legal excuse to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of a contract." Weiss v. Sheet Metal Fabricators, Inc., 110 A.2d 671, 675 (1955) (quoting Friedman v. Katzner, 201, 114 A. 884, 886 (Md. 1921). "Maryland law generally requires giving legal effect to the clear terms of a contract," Calomiris v. Woods, 727 A.2d 358, 361 (Md. 1999), and it is "improper for the court to rewrite the terms of a contract, or draw a new contract for the parties, when the terms thereof are clear and unambiguous, simply to avoid hardships," Canaras v. Lift Truck Services, 322 A.2d 866, 873 (Md. 1974).

  10. In re Connecticut Pizza, Inc.

    193 B.R. 217 (Bankr. D. Md. 1996)   Cited 44 times
    Finding debtor's phone number was property of the estate, despite phone company policy which stated customers have no property right in telephone numbers

    . . ." Weiss v. Sheet Metal Fabricators, Inc., 206 Md. 195, 110 A.2d 671, 675 (1955) (quoting Friedman v. Katzner, 139 Md. 195, 201, 114 A. 884, 886 (1921)); see also Fowler v. A A Co., 262 A.2d 344, 347 (D.C. 1970). By failing to transfer the telephone number upon the Plaintiff's request, the court finds that Bell Atlantic breached the contract arising from the customer agreement between Plaintiff and Bell Atlantic.