Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Edens v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided September 29, 1988No. 87-2677Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurnaghan, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority that there was adequate evidence in the record for the jury to find that there was a valid contract among the parties and that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company had breached it. However, because the actions of Goodyear did not rise to the level of a “fraudulent act” accompanying a breach of contract pursuant to South Carolina law, I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the award of punitive damages.

South Carolina courts repeatedly have explained that a mere breach of a contract, even if willful or with fraudulent purpose, is not sufficient to entitle a…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. United States v. One 1971 Mercedes Benz 2-Door Coupe, Serial No. 11304412023280Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976
  4. Washington Gas Light Company v. Virginia Electric and Power CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1971
  5. United States v. Armand GravelyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API