It appears the New York courts will soon revisit the issue of contract language used to modify the statute of limitations period when it comes to breach of contract issues. The particular case involves Deutsche Bank and Quicken Loans.
This matter concerns accusations regarding the purported sale of fraudulent residential mortgage-backed securities sold between December 2006 and May 2007. In the contract language, there was a provision to cure any possible breach of warranty issues. A court earlier decided that such language was improper.
What the courts previously said
This is not the first case of this kind involving Deutsche Bank. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York previously decided Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Flagstar Capital Markets Corp. back on Aug. 11, 2016. The court decided that a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claim began running at the time of the supposed false representations.
In the 2016 case, the court was reluctant to allow parties to be to modify a statute of limitations in the contract language because of the involvement of both public and private concerns. The courts stressed that parties were not absolutely free in the inclusion of contract language.
Because of this, the court granted Quicken Loans motion to dismiss.
Locating answers to complicated legal questions
As both of these matters demonstrate, breach of contract matters can end in litigation. This is in part because the laws are unclear. And how courts will interpret laws is often uncertain.
There are many laws pertaining to business, and most are complex. It’s difficult to know the current laws or interpretations of the laws without first consulting with an experienced business law attorney. An incorrect assumption regarding a contract clause could mean removal of that clause. It could also have other consequences that result in great cost to the business.
