Real estate contract dispute
A home-buyer plaintiff, our client, signed a purchase-and-sale agreement to buy a lovely, vacant lot of land in Portsmouth Rhode Island. The seller had made written and verbal representations that, before the sale, the seller had applied for and obtained all the approvals necessary to build a three-bedroom house on the lot. The plaintiff had made it known she intended to build a three-bedroom house based on the representations made by the seller. After the closing, when the plaintiff proceeded to excavate and build, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) inspected the site and determined that the soil conditions contained in the seller’s permit application were different than the soil conditions DEM observed during their post-sale inspection. DEM issued the plaintiff a cease-and-desist order that prevented her from building her dream house. She complained she did not receive what she paid for. Harrison Law Associates filed suit in Superior Court alleging duel theories of mutual mistake of fact, intentional fraud, and misrepresentation. Ultimately, we successfully obtained the remedy our client desired, which was a rescission of the purchase-and-sale agreement and a full refund of her purchase price.
Breach of sales commission contract
Our client had a verbal agreement with the president of a corporate entity — the defendant — to act as an independent contractor and sell the corporation’s product to the general public for a 5% commission of the gross sales made. After the plaintiff (our client) introduced the corporate defendant to customers who purchased approximately $350,000 worth of the company’s product (for a commission of approximately $17,500) the president of the company denied he had promised to pay the 5% commission. This denial came despite evidence showing the defendant had paid our client installments toward the $17,500. Through artful use of Requests for Admissions, Harrison Law Associates persuaded both parties that a settlement for the corporate defendant to pay a lump sum more than the company wanted to pay, and less than the plaintiff wanted to accept, would be in both parties’ best interests. The case settled within six months.
Contract of employment dispute
A plaintiff, our client, was an honest, hard-working professional administrator with a three-year written employment contract that provided he could only be terminated for just cause. With one year remaining on his employment contract, the plaintiff was accused by his employer and some coworkers of creating a hostile work environment for his coworkers and subordinates. The employer prepared an exhaustive 13- page investigative report that concluded the client should be terminated from his employment. Harrison Law Associates assisted our client organize a compelling argument why the employer’s hostile-environment allegations were untrue and motivated by bad faith. We further assisted the client to achieve his goal to negotiate his resignation (rather than termination for cause) along with a lump-sum payment of over six months of severance pay.