paint-brush
Breach of Contract: Applying Legal Precedents to Denis Grosz’s Case Against Toptal, LLCby@legalpdf
115 reads

Breach of Contract: Applying Legal Precedents to Denis Grosz’s Case Against Toptal, LLC

by Legal PDFMarch 1st, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Mr. Grosz's ability to prove breach of contract hinges on contract interpretation, guided by legal precedents such as Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC, indicating that district courts may decide such matters on summary judgment in the absence of factual complexities or ambiguities.
featured image - Breach of Contract: Applying Legal Precedents to Denis Grosz’s Case Against Toptal, LLC
Legal PDF HackerNoon profile picture

TOPTAL, LLC v. DENIS GROSZ Court Filing, retrieved on February 26, 2024 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 3 of 7.

I. Mr. Grosz Cannot Prove Breach Of Contract

“[I]n the absence of ambiguity or other factual complexities,” none of which is present here, “contract interpretation presents a question of law that [] district court[s] may decide on summary judgment.” Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC, 129 Nev. 306, 309 (2013); see also State Dep’t of Transp. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cnty. of Clark, 133 Nev. 549, 553-55 (2017) (reversing denial of summary judgment on breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims because “[n]othing in the four corners of the [] agreement prohibited” defendant's conduct). If a provision at issue in the contract is “not ...  reasonably subject to the construction for which [the nonmoving party] contends,” summary judgment is warranted in favor of the moving party. Parman v. Petricciani, 70 Nev. 427, 430-32 (1954), abrogated on other grounds by Wood, 121 Nev. at 724.




Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case retrieved on October 11, 2023, from media.licdn.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.