Norse Petroleum A/S v. LVO International, Inc.

11 Citing cases

  1. Miller v. Newsweek, Inc.

    660 F. Supp. 852 (D. Del. 1987)   Cited 26 times
    Finding that a valid and enforceable oral contract was formed during a telephone conversation between parties, wherein the parties "set many of the important terms of the contract" agreeing as to "the quantity of negatives, time, place, and manner of delivery, and even the price"

    Wilmington Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 172 A.2d 63, 66 (Del.Supr. 1961); Norse Petroleum A/S v. LVO Intern Inc., 389 A.2d 771, 773 (Del.Super. 1978). A contract is formed at the moment the final act necessary for its creation takes place.

  2. Banco Nominees Ltd. v. Iroquois Brands

    748 F. Supp. 1070 (D. Del. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that English courts would be better positioned to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses residing in the U.K.

    Under Delaware law, the place of contract formation is the place where the last act necessary for contract formation occurred. Norse Petroleum A/S v. LVO Intern, Inc., Del.Super., 389 A.2d 771, 773 (1978); Miller v. Newsweek, Inc., 660 F. Supp. 852, 854 (D.Del. 1987). Depending on whose version of the facts one adopts, the place of contract formation is either England, New York or Bermuda. The undisputed facts tend to show that at least part of the negotiation occurred in England.

  3. Blue Ball Properties v. McClain

    658 F. Supp. 1310 (D. Del. 1987)   Cited 18 times
    Rejecting the argument that "calling for, receiving, and cashing the check establishes minimum contacts between Delaware and [the defendant]"

    The fact that the contract between Bundesen and McClain was formally accepted by plaintiffs in Delaware is the only basis upon which the plaintiffs can reasonably argue that McClain has transacted business within the meaning of § 3104(c)(1). See Norse Petroleum A/S v. LVO Int'l, Inc., 389 A.2d 771 (Del.Super. 1978) (contract considered to exist when the final act necessary for its formation takes place). Although this factor weighs in favor of applying § 3104(c)(1) to McClain, the Court holds that standing alone this factor is not enough to support a finding that McClain was doing business in Delaware.

  4. Process Storage Vessels, Inc. v. Tank Service

    541 F. Supp. 725 (D. Del. 1982)   Cited 15 times

    Just as clearly, where substantive issues of interpretation of a contract are involved, the courts have in the past applied the law of the state in which the contract was made. See e.g., Oliver B. Cannon Son Co., Inc. v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc., 312 A.2d 322, 325 (Del.Super. 1973); Norse Petroleum A/S v. Lvo Intern Inc., 389 A.2d 771, 773 (Del.Super. 1978); Unit, Inc. v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp., 304 A.2d 320, 327 (Del.Super. 1973). As Judge Schwartz of this Court recognized in Sellon v. General Motors Corp., 521 F. Supp. 978 (D.Del. 1981), however, the courts of this state more recently have moved away from wooden application of these rules toward the more functional standards advocated by the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws.

  5. Cropper v. Rego Distribution Center, Inc.

    542 F. Supp. 1142 (D. Del. 1982)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that component part manufacturer was not liable for failing to place in its catalog warning of dangers involved in using component part in connection with unloading riser, on ground that manufacturer could not be expected to foresee every possible misuse to which part might be put

    Plaintiffs' claim against Pro Chem arises out of its role in the design and construction of the riser system, i.e., out of its performance of its contract with Swift. Although the contract may have been accepted at Pro Chem's New Jersey office, no questions as to its interpretation, existence, or validity have been raised. Cf. Norse Petroleum v. LVO International, Inc., 389 A.2d 771 (Del.Super. 1978) (under Delaware law, law of place where contract is formed determines its existence and validity). The undisputed facts disclose that the riser was to be erected by Pro Chem in Delaware; thus, if plaintiffs' claim sounds in contract, a Delaware court would apply Delaware law. Fairbanks, Morse Co. v. Consolidated Fisheries Co., 190 F.2d 817 (3d Cir. 1951).

  6. Cannon Son, Inc. v. Fid. Cas. Co.

    484 F. Supp. 1375 (D. Del. 1980)   Cited 42 times
    Finding coverage where insured's paint caused tanks to sustain damage in form of rust

    1970); Pauley Petroleum, Inc. v. Continental Oil Co., 43 Del. Ch. 366, 231 A.2d 450 (1967), aff'd, 239 A.2d 629 (Del.Supr. 1968); Norse Petroleum A/S v. LVO International, Inc., 389 A.2d 771 (Del.Super. 1978). It is undisputed that the insurance contract involved in the present case was made in Pennsylvania, at the plaintiff's place of business. The exclusion in that case was, in fact, identical to exclusion (b) in the present case.

  7. Sacks v. Rothberg

    569 A.2d 150 (D.C. 1990)   Cited 37 times

    Under the Agreement, appellee was not obligated until April 15, 1982, to deliver the Note to appellants. Einhorn v. Ceran Corp., 177 N.J. Super. 442, 450, 426 A.2d 1076, 1080 (1980) (contract speaks as of date it was signed); Norse Petroleum A/S v. LVO Intern, Inc., 389 A.2d 771, 773 (Del.Super.Ct. 1978) (and citations therein) (contract considered to exist when final action necessary for its formation occurs). Consequently, the burden was on appellants to show by parol evidence that the parties intended the obligation to be effective for purposes of defining an anniversary date on April 5. Although Pauline Sacks testified that she intended her birth date of April 5 to be the anniversary date of the Note, she also testified that all documents were to be dated April 5, 1982, and that clearly was not what occurred.

  8. Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Modernica, Inc.

    C.A. No. K16C-07-003 WLW (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2017)

    Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c). Norse Petroleum A/S v. LVO Int'l, Inc., 389 A.2d 771, 774 (Del. Super. 1978). Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979).

  9. Fuller v. Gemini Ventures, LLC

    C.A. No. 05C-06-019-RFS (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2006)   Cited 2 times

    The overt manifestations of assent control, not the subjective intent, and Defendant has presented no evidence to indicate that Plaintiffs' actions signify anything other than acceptance of the terms presented in the Contract. See Norse Petroleum A/S v. LVO International Inc., 389 A.2d 771 (Del. 1978); see also Diamond Electric, Inc. v. Delaware Solid Waste Authority, 1999 WL 160161, at *3 (Del.Ch. March 15, 1999) ("A contract is formed if a reasonable person would conclude, based on the objective manifestations of assent and surrounding circumstances, that the parties intended to be bound to their agreement on all essential terms."). Normally, a bill of sale functions to transfer interests at the closing of a transaction much like the recording of a deed upon a real estate settlement.

  10. Sowell v. Townsends, Inc.

    C.A. No. 99A-01-001 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 26, 2000)   Cited 2 times

    "Industrial America", Inc. v. Fulton Industries, Inc., Del. Supr., 285 A.2d 412, 415 (1971). Accord Norse Petroleum A/S v. LVO Intern, Inc., Del. Super., 389 A.2d 771, 775 (1978). In the case at hand, the Board looked at whether the parties reached an agreement.