S R Associates, L.P. v. Shell Oil Co.

40 Citing cases

  1. Dalton v. Ford Motor Company

    C.A. No. 00C-09-155 WCC (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2002)   Cited 22 times

    "Fraudulent concealment requires the twin showing of (a) the defendant's knowledge of the alleged wrong, and (b) an affirmative act of concealment by the defendant" and "mere silence or failure to disclose does not constitute such fraudulent concealment as will suspend operation of a statute of limitations." SR Associates v. Shell Oil Co., 725 A.2d 431, 436 (Del.Super. 1998). B. Breach of Warranty Claims

  2. St. Paul v. Elkay Mfg. Co.

    C.A. No. 98C-11-262 WCC, C.A. No. 99C-11-144 WCC (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 17, 2003)

    Accordingly, Wohlsen, as a corporation, lacks standing to bring a claim under section 2-318 and John Guests' motion for summary judgment on the claims of breach of contract and breach of warranty must be GRANTED. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6 § 2-318 (1999) (emphasis added); SR Associates, L.P., III v. Shell Oil Co., 725 A.2d 431 (Del.Super.Ct. 1998). See SR Associates, 725 A.2d at 437-438 (analyzing title 6, section 2-318 of the Delaware Code and its history).

  3. Joint Stock Society v. UDV North America, Inc.

    53 F. Supp. 2d 692 (D. Del. 1999)   Cited 15 times
    Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing, inter alia, a trademark cancellation claim on the basis of laches

    Despite the language of subsection (b), the Delaware state courts have interpreted their Unfair Trade Practices Act, Del. C. Ann. tit. 6, § 2532, as prohibiting "unreasonable or unfair interference with the `horizontal' relationships between various business interests," see Grand Ventures, Inc. v. Whaley, 632 A.2d 63, 70 (Del. 1993), which affords standing to only those businesses which are competing against each other in the marketplace. See S R Assocs., L.P., III v. Shell Oil Co., 725 A.2d 431, 440 (Del.Super. 1998); Pack Process, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 503 A.2d 646, 649 n. 1 (Del.Super. 1985). Thus, while the Society may be competing "head-to-head" with UDV in Russia, by their own admission, the plaintiffs have no market presence in the United States.

  4. BeautyCon Media ABC Tr. v. New Gen. Mkt. Partners

    C. A. N22C-12-143 MAA CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    AssuredPartners of Virginia, LLC, 2020 WL 2789706, at *12. S&R Associates, LP v. Shell Oil Co., 725 A.2d 431, 439 (Del. Super. Sept. 30, 1998); Jeter v. RevolutionWear, Inc., 2016 WL 3947951, at *10 (Del. Ch. July 19, 2016); Pivotal Payments Direct Corp. v. Planet Payment, Inc., 2015 WL 11120934, at *5 (Del. Super. Dec. 29, 2015).Ocimum Biosolutions (India) Ltd. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., 2019 WL 672836, at *9 (Del. Super. Dec. 4, 2019).

  5. Adams v. Gelman

    C.A. No. N15C-06-030 MMJ (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 28, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that Superior Court Civil Rule 9(b) requires a plaintiff to provide a defendant sufficient notice to defend himself in order to survive dismissal

    Jakubowski v. Lengen, 86 A.D.2d 398, 450 N.Y.S.2d 612, 624 (N.Y.App.Div. 1982). S&R Associates, L.P. v. Shell Oil Co., 725 A.2d 431, 440 (Del. Super. 1998). Plaintiffs have failed to state a specific allegation of any agreement between Dr. Gelman, State Farm/Amazon.com, Inc., and Defendants' counsel to achieve particular results.

  6. Young & Mcpherson Funeral Home, Inc. v. Butler's Home Improvement, LLC

    C.A. No. N14C-08-234 JRJ (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 6, 2015)   Cited 12 times
    Denying motion to dismiss negligence action to the extent the claim was premised on defective "construction work in the interior of the walls, chimney, and roof because the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until 2013 when plaintiffs were first informed by the City Code Enforcement Department that defendants did not replace the roof and underlying damage "as promised" but simply added new tiles to hide the deficiencies

    " Assuming a tolling exception has been pleaded adequately, the Court must then determine when the plaintiff was on inquiry notice of a claim based on the allegations. 10 Del. C. § 8106; Estate of Buonamici v. Morici, 2010 WL 2185966, at *3 (Del. Super. 2010); S&R Assocs., L.P. v. Shell Oil Co., 725 A.2d 431, 439 (Del. Super. 1998). Winner Acceptance Corp. v. Return on Capital Corp., 2008 WL 5352063, at *14 (Del. Ch. 2008).

  7. Thomas v. Capano Homes Inc.

    C.A. No. N14C-11-074 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 2, 2015)   Cited 5 times
    Calling an evaluation of inquiry notice "premature" at the motion to dismiss stage

    " For the limitations period to be tolled, the cause of action must be inherently unknowable and the plaintiff must be blamelessly ignorant of the cause of action.S&R Associates, L.P. v. Shell Oil Co., 725 A.2d 431, 439 (Del. Super. 1998); 10 Del. C. §8106. See S&R Associates, 725 A.2d at 439; Lee v. Linmere Homes, Inc., 2008 WL 4444552, at *3 (Del. Super. 2008).

  8. ABDI v. NVR, INC.

    C.A. No. 04C-08-028-PLA (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 17, 2007)   Cited 10 times
    In Abdi, the plaintiffs suffered damages after a back-up caused sewage to flood their basement through a toilet, shower, and sink.

    Therefore, pursuant to Section 8106, a plaintiff must bring an action for breach of warranty and negligence within three years of "the accruing of the cause of such action."See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. SL Contractors, Inc., 2002 WL 31999352, at *1, 3 (Del. Com. Pl. Nov. 8, 2002) ("As to plaintiff's negligence claim, the three year statute of limitations found in [Section] 8106 is applicable to that claim rather than the two year statute of limitations set forth in [Section] 8107."); SR Assocs., L.P. v. Shell Oil Co., 725 A.2d 431, 439 (Del.Super.Ct. 1998) ("Generally, a three-year statute of limitation under [Section] 8106 governs claims of negligence."); Elmer, 698 F. Supp. at 539 (Under Section 8106, "a litigant must bring a cause of action for breach of warranty within three years after the time the cause of action accrued."); Estall, 1993 WL 189500, at *2 ("There is an implied builder's warranty of good quality and workmanship in Delaware. The three year period provided by [Section] 8106 applies to claims under this implied warranty.") (citations omitted); Council of Unit Owners of Sea Colony East, Phase III Condo. v. Carl M. Freeman, Assocs. Inc., 1988 WL 90569, at *6 (Del.Super.Ct. Aug. 16, 1988) ("Both parties agree that the three-year limitation found in [Section] 8106 applies to the breach of expressed and implied warranties."); Plumb v. Cottle, 492 F. Supp. 1330, 1336 (D. Del. 1980) ("Count I also alleges a cause of action based on breach of expressed and implied warranties[.] . . .

  9. Jakotowicz v. Hyundai Motor America

    C.A. No. 04C-05-298 RRC (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 17, 2005)   Cited 2 times

    Therefore, only an express warranty that speaks to a specific point in the future falls within this "future performance exception."SR Associates, L.P., III, v. Shell Oil Co., 725 A.2d 431, 435 (Del.Super. 1998) (holding that the defendant did not intend to provide a "future performance" warranty on its polybutylene piping when the defendant stated that polybutylene is comparable to copper piping), citing Pack Process, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., Del. Super., 503 A.2d 646, 652 (1985) and Lecates v. Hertrich Pontiac Buick Co., 515 A.2d 163, n. 15. (Del.Super. 1986). The drafters of the Uniform Commercial Code, upon which 6 Del. C. § 2-725 is based, "decided that the seller's need to have some clearly defined limit on the period of its potential liability outweighed the buyer's interest in an extended warranty and reserved the benefits of an extended warranty [a "future performance" warranty] to those who explicitly bargain for them."

  10. Pender v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation

    No. 03C-12-022-FSS (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 30, 2004)   Cited 2 times
    Dismissing claims brought by private parties under the Consumer Fraud Act and Deceptive Trade Practices Act for non-compliance with the three-year limitations period applicable to such claims under 10 Del. C. § 8106

    See generally Kaufman v. C.L. McCabe Sons, Incorporated, 603 A.2d 831, 835 (Del. 1992) (where injury is "inherently unknowable" and plaintiff is "blamelessly ignorant," limitation period does not begin running until plaintiff has reason to know wrong committed).SR Associates, L.P. v. Shell Oil Company, 725 A.2d 431, 435 (Del.Super.Ct. 1998) (citing Elmer v. Tenneco Resins, Incorporated, 698 F. Supp. 535, 539 (D.Del. 1988)).SR Associates, 725 A.2d at 435 (citing Harvey v. Sears, Roebuck Company, 315 A.2d 599, 601 (Del.Super.Ct. 1973)).