Nirvana International, Inc. v. ADT Security Services, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
881 F.Supp. 2d 556 (2013)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Amit Sharma was the owner of Nirvana International, Inc. (Nirvana) (plaintiff), a jewelry store. Sharma met with a sales representative for ADT Security Services, Inc. (ADT) (defendant) to buy security services for Nirvana. ADT’s sales representative presented Sharma with a six-page contract. Page six of the contract limited ADT’s liability to $1000 for any client’s loss. Sharma signed and initialed pages one through three of the contract, but declined to agree to pages four through six of the contract without more time to review them. Sharma later concluded that he did not agree to the terms and conditions of pages four through six, but he did not communicate his decision to ADT. A few weeks after the meeting, ADT installed its alarm system at Nirvana, with Sharma’s permission. Sharma began paying a monthly fee for ADT’s surveillance. Six months later, Nirvana was robbed of $2.4 million in jewelry. The robbery went undetected by ADT. Nirvana sued ADT for, among other things, breach of contract, seeking to recover the $2.4 million. Nirvana argued that its contract with ADT did not include the limitation of liability contained on page six of the parties’ contract, because Sharma did not consent to pages four through six. ADT moved to dismiss, arguing that the contract’s limit of liability prevented Nirvana from suing for more than $1,000.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McMahon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
