Cases pin-citing Management Computer Services, Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co. · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Management Computer Services, Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co.

Cases pin-citing Management Computer Services, Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co.

Management Computer Services, Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co.  ·  1996  ·  30 pinpoint citations from 11 cases, 10 distinct passages.

Michael Bauer v. Fincantieri Marine Group, LLC  ·  2025-11-18  ·  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 206 N.W.2d at 67
“[U]njust enrichment is based on equitable principles, with damages being measured by the benefit conferred upon the defendant, not the plaintiff’s loss.”
Thomas A. King v. Randall L. Niederkorn  ·  2022-10-11  ·  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 206 N.W.2d at 67
“[A] material breach by one party may excuse subsequent performance by the other.”
John McAdams v. Marquette University  ·  2018-07-06  ·  Wisconsin Supreme Court  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 206 N.W.2d at 67
"[A] contract must be definite as to the parties' basic commitments and obligations."
John McAdams v. Marquette University  ·  2018-07-06  ·  Wisconsin Supreme Court  ·  8 pin-cites  ·  pin 206 N.W.2d at 67
"[A] contract must be definite as to the parties' basic commitments and obligations."
Pacific Cycle, Inc. v. Powergroup International, LLC  ·  2013-08-30  ·  W.D. Wisconsin  ·  pin 206 Wis. 2d at 158
“It is well established that a material breach by one party may excuse subsequent performance by the other.”
Wuliger v. Cannella Response Television, Inc.  ·  2011-09-06  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  pin 206 Wis. 2d at 158
“This court has defined conversion as ‘the wrongful exercise of dominion or control over a chattel.’ ”
Ehlinger v. Hauser  ·  2010-06-25  ·  Wisconsin Supreme Court  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 206 N.W.2d at 67
"An ambiguous contract is not necessarily indefinite."
Uniek, Inc. v. Dollar General Corp.  ·  2007-06-18  ·  W.D. Wisconsin  ·  pin 206 Wis. 2d at 158
“Vagueness or indefiniteness as to an essential term of the agreement prevents the creation of an enforceable contract.”
Skebba v. Kasch  ·  2006-10-24  ·  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 206 N.W.2d at 67
"[T]he application of statutory and case law to a set of facts present questions of law, which we review de novo."
Kernz v. J. L. French Corp.  ·  2003-06-12  ·  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 206 N.W.2d at 67
"[P]arties do not need to agree subjectively to the same interpretation at the time of contracting in order for there to be a mutual assent, because a literal 'meeting of the minds' is not required."
American Building Maintenance Co. v. 1000 Water Street Condominium Ass'n  ·  1998-06-30  ·  E.D. Wisconsin  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 206 N.W.2d at 67
“It is well established that a material breach by one party may excuse subsequent performance by the other.”