What is Puffing in Negotiations?

Useful Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations

Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations

26-35 of 35 results

GARCIA V. SUBURBAN PROPANE, L.P.

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct violates Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (d), Business and Professions Code section 6106, Business and Professions Code section 6128, Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a) and violates California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200, subparts (A) and (B). Defendant also alleges the conduct is sanctionable under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b)(1).

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2016

NETWORK THERAPIES, INC. VS. MMS

If it was the latter, the attorney may have violated the candor provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6068 (d) and the then-operative Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200. An order correcting the Judgment is warranted on the authority cited above and also under the principles that would apply to an argument, either in this case or in a separate suit in equity, that the Judgment is void because it awarded more than was requested in the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

ALTA VISTA SOLUTIONS VS. STATE

For instance, even though Government Code section 4528 states how a state agency head negotiates a contract after awarding a section 4525 contract, a provision was adopted on the same subject when the Public Contract Code was adopted in 1990, section 6106, and an explicit cross-reference to that section was added to the Government Code at the same time.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2019

PAN PARTNERSHIP VS LAS VIRGENES INVESTMENTS

Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-200(B). Moving on to the merits of the motion, the seventh cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations is directed against Claudia Jo Jones, Dene Molina, United Associated Brokers, dba Ace Realty, Andy Zepeda, and Jose Cabrera. It alleges that plaintiff entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Las Virgenes Investments on 12/10/14. (FAC, ¶ 52). Defendants were aware of this contractual relationship. (FAC, ¶ 53).

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

HELEN THERESA GIVENS V. ROY ANTHONY GIVENS, ET AL.

Conduct, rule 5-200(B)-(D).) Similarly, the Judges of the Santa Clara County Superior Court have adopted by standing order the Santa Clara County Bar Association’s Code of Professionalism. As a result, the Court expects attorneys to comport themselves in accordance with the guidelines of professionalism set forth therein including: “written materials submitted to the court should always be factual...” (SCCBA Code of Professionalism, § 7.) Footnote 2:

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

JOAN BOICE BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST VS. EMERITUS CORPORATION

On the last ground, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' counsel's conduct violated CRPC 5-200, Business and Profession's Code section 6068(d) and (f), and Penal Code sections 136.1, 133, and 137.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VERA BROWN VS. JEFFERY GREENBERG ET AL

AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANT,NO OPPOSITION FILED.(302/J.MCBRIDE)...

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2004

VERA BROWN VS. JEFFERY GREENBERG ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel-Civil HEARING REQUIRED.(302/KMM/JU)...

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2004

VERA BROWN VS. JEFFERY GREENBERG ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR, UNTIMELY PROOF OF SERVICE, 03/12/04 BY MAIL. (302/REQ/ju)...

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2004

  « first    1 2

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.