Breach Reading
Last time I wrote about the suits and countersuits between Blackwater USA and the survivors of the four Blackwater employees killed and displayed by that bridge in Fallujah back in 2004, people pointed out that for better or worse the men had signed contracts agreeing not to sue their employees. That’s a valid point. But Scott Horton has a report suggesting that Blackwater violated hell out of the contract themselves. I don’t know if that level of breach would void the contract to the extent that it invalidates the no-suit clause. I wonder if the hotshot lawbloggers who read UO have an opinion.
Comment by matthew hogan —
July 27, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
“I’m sorry but your policy states that no claim that you make will be paid, I’m sorry,” a Monty Python sketch somewhere.
Comment by Dave W. —
July 27, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
D**n lawyers!
Comment by Mona —
July 27, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
If the facts really are as egregious as described in that article, then yes, Blackwater can be sued. For one thing, courts generally take a dim view of enforcing provisions whereby people sign away all right to sue, and the apparent negligence here is pretty extreme.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 27, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
Doh! Forgot I have my own hotshot lawblogger!
Trackback by Overlawyered —
August 5, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
August 6 roundup…
Patent suit by firm called Parallel Processing demands that all Sony PlayStation 3 consoles be impounded and destroyed [ArsTechnica, Slashdot] It’s not all going to Edwards: a scorecard on presidential campaigns’ law-firm fundraising [National Law……