MENU

Contract Law

M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-23-15 featuring Michael DeBoer
Michael DeBoer April 23, 2015

On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett. The issue in this case is whether, when courts interpret collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, they should assume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and therefore continue indefinitely), or should require that it be stated explicitly (or at least stated in some way) that health-care benefits are intended to endure after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. 

In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held unanimously that when determining whether retiree benefits should continue indefinitely after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, courts should apply ordinary contract principles.  Those principles do not support a presumption that the agreement reflects an intent to vest retirees with lifetime benefits. The judgment of the Sixth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. 

To discuss the case, we have Michael DeBoer, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Faulkner University School of Law.

Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations - Event Audio/Video

17th Annual Faculty Conference
William Baude, Charles Korsmo, Minor Myers, Christopher Newman, Christopher J. Walker, Kevin Walsh, James Lindgren, Keith N. Hylton, Richard W. Garnett January 09, 2015

This panel was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC.

Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations
2:30-4:30 pm
In Memory of Prof. Dan Markel, Florida State University School of Law, Prawfsblawg Founder, and former Searle fellow

  • Prof. William Baude, University of Chicago Law School, "Is Originalism the Law?"
  • Prof. Charles Korsmo, Case Western University School of Law, "Aggregation by Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions with a Market for Legal Claims"
  • Prof. Minor Myers, Brooklyn Law School, "Aggregation by Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions with a Market for Legal Claims"
  • Prof. Christopher Newman, George Mason University School of Law, "Bailment and the Property/Contract Interface"
  • Prof. Christopher Walker, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, "Inside Agency Interpretation"
  • Prof. Kevin Walsh, University of Richmond School of Law, "In the Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review of State Criminal Prosecutions"
  • Commentor: Prof. James Lindgren, Northwestern University School of Law
  • Commentor: Prof. Keith Hylton, Boston University School of Law
  • Moderator: Prof. Richard Garnett, University of Notre Dame Law School

Washington, DC
January 3, 2015

Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-28-14 featuring Lee Strang
Lee Strang April 28, 2014

Lee StrangOn April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg. The question here is whether the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (the “ADA”) preempts Ginsburg’s claim that Northwest Air Lines breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it unilaterally terminated his membership in Northwest’s frequent-flier program.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court unanimously held that the Airline Deregulation Act preempts a state-law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it seeks to enlarge the contractual obligation that the parties voluntarily adopt. The opinion of the Ninth Circuit was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

To discuss the case, we have Lee Strang, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Toledo College of Law.

Sovereign Immunity and Freedom of Contract - Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Michael D. Ramsey April 24, 2014

Central Bank of Argentina

In 2001, Argentina defaulted on $80 billion of government bonds. When issuing the bonds in the early 1990s, Argentina expressly waived sovereign immunity, in order to get higher value for the bonds it issued. Now, Argentina is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals requiring disclosure of information about the country’s assets. What are the extent of the plaintiff’s rights to discovery of Argentina’s assets? Does the answer depend on the location, use, or character of the assets? The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital on Monday, April 21, 2014. Our expert offered his impression of the arguments and answered questions from a call-in audience.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law, Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego School of Law

[Listen now!]??