United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
412 F.3d 315 (2005)
Sandeep Dalal (defendant) acted as a sales broker for the sale of India.com, Inc. (ICI) (plaintiff), a subsidiary of EasyLink Services Corporation (EasyLink). Dalal negotiated terms with Business India Publications Limited (BI), and EasyLink and BI signed a stock purchase agreement (the agreement) for the sale of ICI. The agreement’s negating clause provided that neither the agreement nor any schedule of the agreement was intended to create a right, claim, or remedy in favor of anyone other than the parties to the agreement. The agreement identified Dalal as the sales broker and indicated that Dalal was entitled to a commission under terms set out in a disclosure schedule. In a separate agreement, EasyLink agreed to pay a commission to Dalal when the sale between EasyLink and BI closed. EasyLink terminated the agreement before completing the sale. Dalal argued that EasyLink failed to close the transaction to avoid paying Dalal’s commission. ICI sued Dalal, and Dalal counterclaimed against EasyLink for breaches of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, seeking recovery under the agreement as a third-party beneficiary. The district court held that Dalal was a third-party beneficiary under the agreement and entered judgment for Dalal for over $930,000. EasyLink moved to amend the judgment, and the court reversed its decision, finding that the agreement’s negating clause was controlling and that Dalal was not a third-party beneficiary. The court reversed again upon Dalal’s motion, concluding that EasyLink had waived a defense based on the negating clause by failing to raise it, and reinstated the judgment for Dalal. Both parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.