James Vargo and Jerry Kaltenbach announce new law practice.

KV Law Full Size jpgWith nearly 30 years of combined experience practicing in large and in mid-size law firms, and after embarking on successful careers as sole practitioners, Jerry Kaltenbach and James Vargo have teamed up to bring you Kaltenbach Vargo, LLC.

Kaltenbach Vargo, LLC, was founded on the principal of delivering top quality legal services in a more economic manner.  We do this through our efficiency and our ability to utilize technology in almost all aspects of our practice.

While our primary focus will continue to be business litigation, we can assist you or your business in many other areas, including business formation, employee and vendor agreements, and various other contractual matters.

We also leverage our extensive experience in fee disputes, consumer complaints, commercial and residential real estate matters, and ethical matters before the Ohio Division of Real Estate and Professional Licensing, as well as local Boards of Realtors and associations, to assist agents and brokers seeking representation on any of these matters.

In addition, we are strong advocates for consumers, protecting their rights through the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and various federal laws, and by representing those who were injured by a defective product or who suffered a significant personal injury due to the negligence of another.

If we can assist you or your business in any of these matters, please feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

Class Action against Apple and AT&T to proceed

I have an iPhone.  I love it.  I have AT&T service on my iPhone because I have to.  I don’t love it.

I honestly don’t know if I would love the iPhone more on Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, or any other carrier.  A device so powerful, so popular, and so demanding of bandwidth has the capacity to cripple any carrier.  That’s why I hope all the carriers will have the iPhone someday.  I may not even switch from, AT&T.  At least, not right away.  I will wait to see how network traffic across carriers is affected.  Fewer iPhones on multiple networks will should reduce traffic and dropped calls. Also, competition amongst the communication giants should reduce the “sticker shock” when I get the monthly bill.

These topics and more, including anti-trust and claims of secret deals between Apple and AT&T, are the subject of many lawsuits filed since 2007 and now consolidated in the Northern District of California.  The AP reported this morning:

SAN JOSE, Calif. – A federal judge says a monopoly abuse lawsuit against Apple Inc. and AT&T Inc.’s mobile phone unit can move forward as a class action.

The lawsuit consolidates several filed by iPhone buyers starting in late 2007, a few months after the first generation of Apple’s smart phone went on sale.

An amended complaint filed in June 2008 takes issue with Apple’s practice of “locking” iPhones so they can only be used on AT&T’s network, and its absolute control over what applications iPhone owners can and cannot install on the gadgets.

The lawsuit also says Apple secretly made AT&T its exclusive iPhone partner in the U.S. for five years. Consumers agreed to two-year contracts with the Dallas-based wireless carrier when they purchased their phones, but were in effect locked into a five-year relationship with AT&T, the lawsuit argued.

The actions hurt competition and drove up prices for consumers, the lawsuit claims.

Apple and AT&T have not commented on the terms of their deal. In its response to the complaint, Cupertino,California-based Apple said it did not hurt competition.

In court documents filed July 8, Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said parts of the lawsuit that deal with violations to antitrust law can continue as a class action. The class includes anyone who bought an iPhone with a two-year AT&T agreement since the device first went on sale in June 2007.

Apple has sold more than 50 million iPhones in the last three years. The company does not specify how many have gone to U.S. customers.

Ware dismissed other claims against Apple, among them allegations that the company broke laws when an update to the iPhone’s operating software caused some phones to stop working and deleted programs that users had purchased.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to keep Apple from selling locked iPhones in the U.S. and from determining what iPhone programs people can install. It also seeks damages to cover legal fees and other costs.

We will continue to follow this story on the blog.  Would you like links to filed court documents from this case?  Let us know in the comments and we will provide.

You Must Buy My House, But Don’t Have to Paint My Fence: Specific Performance

Contracts, contracts, contracts.  We all have a basic understanding of what a contract is: it’s an agreement to do something in exchange for something else.  The fundamental elements of a contract are:

Hey, Huck, how about you paint this fence?

Offer: I’ll pay you $50.00 to paint my fence.

Acceptance: Ok, it’s a deal.

Consideration: $50.00 paid to the painter.

Performance: The fence gets painted.

Now what happens if you pay the $50.00 and the painter runs off with it?  You can sue the painter for breaching the contract.  Have a look at my post on small claims court practice for information on how to do this.

Let’s say you sue and you win.  What is your remedy?  Can you get the $50.00 back?  Absolutely.  Can you force the painter to paint the fence (a remedy known as specific performance)?  No.  Ohio law is pretty clear that specific performance for a contract for personal services is not an available remedy.  The reasoning behind this is the “mischief” that could result by forcing a party to perform a service after breaching a contract. Continue reading