letter clause in Louisiana

2026See Maloney v. Oak Builders, Inc., 256 La. 85, 98 , 235 So.2d 386, 390 (1970); McConnell, 35 La.

2018See Maloney v. Oak Builders, Inc. , 256 La. 85 , 98, 235 So.2d 386 , 390 (1970) ; McConnell , 35 La.

2012Spohrer v. Spohrer, 610 So.2d at 852 .

1999LSA-C.C. art.2046, comment (b); Cashio v. Shoriak, 481 So.2d 1013, 1015 (La.1986); Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 696 So.2d at 1036 ; Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 634 So.2d at 479 ; Spohrer v. Spohrer, 610 So.2d at 852 .

2024Id. 11 Nevertheless, as a general rule, a contract is ambiguous if, after applying the established rules of contract interpretation, the contract is uncertain as to the parties' intent and susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation under the circumstances.

2022Clovelly Oil Co., LLC, 112 So. 3d at 192 .

1998Cashio v. Shoriak, 481 So.2d 1013, 1015 (La.1986); Borden, Inc. v. Gulf States Utilities Company, 543 So.2d at 927 .

1995Cashio v. Shoriak, 481 So.2d 1013, 1015 (La.1986); Borden, Inc. v. |7Gulf States Utilities Company, 543 So.2d at 927 .

1999LSA-C.C. art.2046, comment (b); Cashio v. Shoriak, 481 So.2d 1013, 1015 (La.1986); Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 696 So.2d at 1036 ; Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 634 So.2d at 479 ; Spohrer v. Spohrer, 610 So.2d at 852 .

1998LSA-C.C. art.2046, comment (b); Cashio v. Shoriak, 481 So.2d 1013, 1015 (La.1986); Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 696 So.2d at 1036 ; Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 634 So.2d at 479 ; Spohrer v. Spohrer, 610 So.2d at 852 .

2013In State v. Zeringue, 03-697 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/03) , 862 So.2d 186 , writ de nied, 03-3523 (La.4/23/04), 870 So.2d 298 , this court concluded that a letter from the defense counsel to the judge stating that the defendant chose to waive his right to a jury trial was not sufficient evidence that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his jury trial right.

2012Similarly, in State v. Zeringue, 03-697 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/03) , 862 So.2d 186 , writ denied, 03-3523 (La.4/23/04), 870 So.2d 298 , the fifth circuit concluded that a letter from defense counsel to the judge stating that the defendant chose to waive his right to a jury trial was not sufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to jury trial.

2013In State v. Zeringue, 03-697 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/03) , 862 So.2d 186 , writ de nied, 03-3523 (La.4/23/04), 870 So.2d 298 , this court concluded that a letter from the defense counsel to the judge stating that the defendant chose to waive his right to a jury trial was not sufficient evidence that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his jury trial right.

2012Similarly, in State v. Zeringue, 03-697 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/03) , 862 So.2d 186 , writ denied, 03-3523 (La.4/23/04), 870 So.2d 298 , the fifth circuit concluded that a letter from defense counsel to the judge stating that the defendant chose to waive his right to a jury trial was not sufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to jury trial.

2007Id.

2003Id.

1999LSA-C.C. art.2046, comment (b); Cashio v. Shoriak, 481 So.2d 1013, 1015 (La.1986); Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 696 So.2d at 1036 ; Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 634 So.2d at 479 ; Spohrer v. Spohrer, 610 So.2d at 852 .

1998LSA-C.C. art.2046, comment (b); Cashio v. Shoriak, 481 So.2d 1013, 1015 (La.1986); Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 696 So.2d at 1036 ; Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 634 So.2d at 479 ; Spohrer v. Spohrer, 610 So.2d at 852 .

2018When the language of a contract or clause is unambiguous, "the letter of that clause should not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit[.]" Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Brammer Eng'g, Inc. , 51,045, p. 6 (La.App. 2 Cir. 11/16/16), 209 So.3d 995 , 1000, writ denied , 17-242 (La. 3/31/17), 217 So.3d 361 .

2018When the language of a contract or clause is unambiguous, "the letter of that clause should not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit[.]" Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Brammer Eng'g, Inc. , 51,045, p. 6 (La.App. 2 Cir. 11/16/16), 209 So.3d 995 , 1000, writ denied , 17-242 (La. 3/31/17), 217 So.3d 361 .

2018Id. , comment (b); Maloney v. Oak Builders , 256 La. 85 , 235 So.2d 386 (1970).

2017Id. |7The intervenor in the instant case relies solely on a letter from defense counsel to intervenor’s counsel and plaintiffs counsel.

2013This case is similar to Threet , where the justice of the peace mistakenly filed the wrong form and we held that “while respondent at first was merely negligent for his untimely filing because he was mistaken as to the correct form to file, once it was made clear to him what the rule required, he knowingly disobeyed the rule by waiting six weeks to file the proper disclosure statement.” 74 So.3d at 685 .

2009Id., comment (b); Maloney v. Oak Builders, 256 La. 85 , 235 So.2d 386 (1970).

2009Id., comment (b); Maloney v. Oak Builders, 256 La. 85 , 235 So.2d 386 (1970).

2008Id., comment (b); Maloney v. Oak Builders, 256 La. 85 , 235 So.2d 386 (1970).

2001LSA-C.C. art. 2046, comment (b); Hampton, 713 So.2d at 1189 .

1994Id.

1988In Shanks v. Callahan, 232 So.2d 306 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1969), the court said that the parties to a written contract are bound by its terms as written.

1965Cf. Wells v. Joseph, La.App., 95 So.2d 843 ; Corkran Oil & Development Co. v. Arnaudet, 111 La. 563 , 35 So. 747 ; 16 C.J.S.

1965Cf. Wells v. Joseph, La.App., 95 So.2d 843 ; Corkran Oil & Development Co. v. Arnaudet, 111 La. 563 , 35 So. 747 ; 16 C.J.S.

1965Cf. Wells v. Joseph, La.App., 95 So.2d 843 ; Corkran Oil & Development Co. v. Arnaudet, 111 La. 563 , 35 So. 747 ; 16 C.J.S.

1965Cf. Wells v. Joseph, La.App., 95 So.2d 843 ; Corkran Oil & Development Co. v. Arnaudet, 111 La. 563 , 35 So. 747 ; 16 C.J.S.

1934Plaintiff’s attorneys returned the cheeks to defendant’s attorney June 21, 1932, accompanied by a letter in which, among other things, they say: “These checks will not be accepted in full settlement.” Defendant contends that this statement in this letter is a waiver on the part of the plaintiff of the formal payment and tender of payment provided by law, citing MacLeod v. Hoover, 159 La. 244 , 105 So. 305 ; that the remittance by checks and dates of remittance were acceptable to plaintiff, the only objection being that .the cheeks did not cover the amount, claimed on account of the returned sw

1934Plaintiff’s attorneys returned the cheeks to defendant’s attorney June 21, 1932, accompanied by a letter in which, among other things, they say: “These checks will not be accepted in full settlement.” Defendant contends that this statement in this letter is a waiver on the part of the plaintiff of the formal payment and tender of payment provided by law, citing MacLeod v. Hoover, 159 La. 244 , 105 So. 305 ; that the remittance by checks and dates of remittance were acceptable to plaintiff, the only objection being that .the cheeks did not cover the amount, claimed on account of the returned sw

1927Virgin, No. 7986 of this court, Opinion Book 57, it was held as follows: “Where a party lulls another into a belief that he will suffer no loss by his inaction and thus induces him to refrain from claiming a debt, prescription will not begin to run until the other party is undeceived.” See also Succession of Gilmore, 157 La. 133 , 102 So. 94 . ■ In this case the letter of the claim agent of the insurance company, quoted above, which plaintiffs’ attorney offers as proof of his statement that the claim had been taken up with the “Mexican Petroleum Corporation” and the local surety company may we

1895Kent, 105 Mass. 246 .” In Morawitz on Private Corporations, Sec. 1009, the author says: “The decease of all the stockholders in such a corporation, therefore, does not terminate its existence, and it is well settled that all the shares in a corporation may be held by a single person and yet the corporation continue to exist; and if the charter or by-laws require certain acts to be done by more than one shareholder, the sole owner may transfer a portion of his shares to other persons So as to conform to the letter of the rule.” In support of this proposition he cites the aforementioned case of