Jonathan Cooper’s Blog

Over the last few years, e-mail has largely replaced “snail mail” as the standard means of communication, as its speed and ease of use are vastly superior (not to mention more cost-effective and environmentally friendly). This revolution is not without its drawbacks, however.

First, almost everyone I know has, at one time or another, mistakenly hit the wrong button, and sent a sensitive e-mail to the wrong person.

Second, as New York’s courts have increasingly made clear, many small business owners remain unaware that their seemingly innocuous e-mails can have far-reaching legal consequences for their businesses. Indeed, New York’s highest court has ruled that a foreign business can be sued in New York if its e-mails seek to engage in a “sustained and substantial transaction of business” in the State. And that remains true even if the business never entered New York State.

In a parallel vein, although many states still require a “subscribed writing” before a contract may be deemed valid, it bears mention that the legislatures and courts are recognizing with increasing frequency the validity of electronic documents, i.e., those that do not bear a handwritten signature (See, e.g., the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. §§7001-7006, and the New York State Electronic Signatures and Records Act). That being said, here are three (3) more traps to avoid when negotiating a business deal:

(1) Never Do Business on a “Handshake”

Ironically, the handshake deal did not begin with a show of trust in the other side to a deal; it originated from each party trying to assure the other that neither was carrying a weapon.  The same holds true today:  If the other side is not willing to reduce a fair agreement to writing, you should not be willing to do business with them. Simply put, it is unreasonable to ask you to risk the financial security of your family and employees on a relative stranger’s “good will.”

Moreover, notwithstanding the courts’ growing recognition of unsigned electronic documents, oral contracts are still not binding under many circumstances and in many jurisdictions.  Consequently, absent a signed agreement, you may be left without any recourse if a dispute arises later about the other side’s performance (or failure to perform) under the agreement. Stated plainly, there is little to no justification for failing to assure that you have a signed agreement.

(2) Remember That Silence Does Not Equal Assent

Although this should be self-evident, unless it is established in concrete terms what the other side is willing to do for you in return for your services or payment, you cannot have a “meeting of the minds” between the parties. And without a meeting of the minds, there is no agreement.

(3) A Well-Detailed Agreement Will Save You Both Time and Money

A detailed agreement that “dots each ‘I’” and “crosses each ‘T’” may prove somewhat tedious, and will cost you a modest sum of money in the short term. But the better-crafted agreement which specifies each party’s obligations will not only afford greater protection for your assets and reduce your potential liabilities, it will diminish, if not eliminate, uncertainty and misunderstandings between the parties, and therefore, help prevent litigation, which almost certainly would prove far more costly.

Many small business owners that I’ve encountered are surprised to learn that under New York law, anyone in a product’s chain of distribution can be held liable for injury that results from the foreseeable use of the product. This law includes a retailer, who may have just put that product on his shelf without ever opening the box, and a distributor, who merely transported the product from one destination to the other. Under this scenario, neither the retailer nor the distributor was actively at fault for the product’s defect or the plaintiff’s accident – and they can still be held liable. Does that sound scary from the retailer or distributor’s perspective? It sure is.The Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof in a Products Liability ActionIn very basic terms, in order to prevail in a products liability action, a plaintiff needs to prove two things: first, that the product is defective, i.e., the product is so likely to be harmful to persons or property that a reasonable person who had actual knowledge of its potential for producing injury would conclude that it should not have been marketed in that condition, and, second, that the defect was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries.  The plaintiff can meet this burden of proof by demonstrating one of the following: (1) this specific product was defectively manufactured; (2) the product was defectively designed; or, (3) the safety warnings accompanying the product were inadequate. At first blush, this law seems particularly tough on middlemen like the retailer and distributor, which presumably have little to no input in either the manufacture or design of the product, or the warnings that are placed on the product. However, it bears mention that these entities reap the financial rewards from selling the product. Consequently, the courts have opined that in the interests of assuring that a plaintiff with a legitimate defective products claim has a viable and readily available party from whom he or she can be compensated (as opposed to a foreign manufacturer with no connection to the plaintiff or place of occurrence), it is fair to hold the middlemen liable for the product’s failures. This law does not leave retailers or distributors without recourse; to the contrary, they are still entitled to seek indemnity and/or contribution from the responsible party (generally, the manufacturer).  On the other hand, clearing the technical and procedural hurdles necessary to get indemnity from the manufacturer is often far from simple, particularly where the manufacturer is foreign.Assumption #1: The manufacturer has the requisite minimum contacts with the forum of the claim. In order to obtain personal jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer, you must demonstrate that the manufacturer either transacts business or has some other tangible nexus with the forum state (see, e.g., New York Civil Practice Law and Rules §302).  Assumption #2: The manufacturer’s host country is a signatory to the Hague Convention’s Service of Process Rules. If Assumption #1 can be satisfied (which is uncertain at best), you will still need to assure that your legal papers are personally served on the manufacturer. This in turn requires that the manufacturer is not only readily located, but can be served under the Hague Convention’s rules.Assumption #3: The manufacturer is a viable entity with collectible assets. It goes without saying that a paper judgment against a defunct corporation is utterly worthless.So how can a domestic retailer or distributor protect itself against products liability claims?  Here are a few suggestions:3         Easy Steps to Protect Your Retail Business Against Defective Products Claims Step #1: Make sure that those entities above you in the chain of distribution carry adequate products liability insurance from a domestic, well-reputed and established insurer that specifically names your company as an additional insured on the policy. Do not rely on the manufacturer’s claim that you are named on the policy; get confirmation directly from the insurer (I have seen instances where the declaration sheet provided by the other party to the agreement was a complete fabrication).Step #2: Make sure that you have an agreement that indemnifies you against any claim of a product defect that is not of your own doing.  Stated otherwise, if you are a retailer or distributor, you should be indemnified against any claims of manufacturing or design defect and/or inadequate warnings.Step #3: Try to assure that those companies directly above you in the chain of distribution have a domestic presence, such as an office or agent for service of process.

While following these rules may cost some time and money in the short run, these safeguards are indispensable, for they may ultimately save your company from needless exposure to financial ruin.

1.  Make sure you have insurance that covers this type of claim - before the claim occurs. Although this may sound overly simplistic and obvious, it is probably worthwhile to spend an hour or two going through your insurance to determine what is actually covered by those policies, and perhaps more importantly, what is NOT covered by those policies.

2.  Make Sure You Follow the Policy’s Claims Reporting Guidelines.  Having taken your hard-earned money in insurance premiums, you would think that the insurers would step up and pay your claim promptly. Although that could happen, don’t bank on it.  A favorite insurance company gambit is to deny claims that do not strictly comply with their reporting requirements.  That brings us to our next rule …

3.  Report Your Claim Promptly. New York’s insurance laws and regulations generally allow insurers to disclaim coverage for claims that are not reported “as soon as practicable” after the claim arose.  Although a definitive time period has not been etched in stone, this has been often interpreted as being no more than 30 days post-incident.

4.  Photograph the Evidence. If your claim is for damage to your property or car, make sure to get your own photographs of the damage before these items are removed from your sight - forever.

5.  Document All Damage. Spending one extra hour now will save you a lot more time and heartache 6 months or a year from now when you can’t remember what happened to that favorite throw pillow you got from Aunt Phyllis. Perhaps one of the best (and easiest) ways to catalog your losses would be to download the free software at www.knowyourstuff.org.

One final thought:  although many articles on these topics, particularly regarding the insurance industry suggest that even mentioning the word “lawyer” may hurt your relationship with the insurer, and hurt your chances to resolve your claim, consider this: if that were true, why aren’t there much fewer trial lawyers?

The truth is, the insurers will likely pay an insured more money after they’ve “lawyered up” than before, if for no other reason than to avoid defending costly litigation.

On March 25, in response to a lawsuit filed by the Air Transportation Association (on behalf of the Airline industry), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck down on technical grounds New York’s law ordering airlines to provide food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers confined in planes that have been unable to take off after three hours.

 The Air Transportation Association issued a statement yesterday lauding the Second Circuit’s decision striking down the law as “decisive,” saying it sends “a strong message to other states that are considering similar legislation.” 

I no longer wonder why the airline industry is continually reporting that it is in dire straits; instead of approaching legislators who sponsored the law in the first place, and working with them to make sure it passed constitutional muster (and, more importantly, get great P.R. mileage out of it), they filed suit in an effort to assure that they would not be required to furnish their passengers with working toilets, food and water.  Admittedly, I know of no customer-service company or industry that could thrive, or even survive long-term with such a blatant arrogance and anti-customer bias. Shame on them.