The complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs failed to provide prompt written notice of a "Disallowance," a condition precedent to their right to demand repayment from defendant under the subject agreement. The giving of such notice was always within plaintiffs' control, and, despite the lack of explicitly conditional language, was unmistakably required by the agreement's "Cure Period" provision prior to the assertion of a claim for repayment (see...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
