Kemira v. Williams Investigative Book Reviews

Kemira v. Williams Investigative by Court of Appeals of Georgia Book Summary

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge. Plaintiff Williams Investigative & Security Services, Inc. ("Williams Investigative") and its president, plaintiff Tim
Williams, brought this contract action against defendant Kemira, Inc. According to the amended complaint, Williams Investigative
and defendant "entered into a 'subcontract for project security services'. . . . Pursuant to the contract, [Williams Investigative
provided] personnel and other related services and undertakings for security on the plant and property of [defendant] in Chatham
County, Georgia. Over the course of the contract . . . varying levels of personnel, supporting equipment and services were
provided by [Williams Investigative] with [defendant] retaining the right to specify its demands and requirements from time
to time." On October 18, 1989, defendant's Corporate Safety Manager, "Joseph E. Clonts, . . . gave written notice to [Williams
Investigative] of a reduction . . ." in defendant's need for future security services. Tim Williams "communicated with Clonts
regarding the status of the contract and future services to ascertain whether it would be terminated [and further . . .] ascertain
what contractual and other commitments [Williams Investigative] must continue in order to be able to provide services required
of it under the contract [such as . . .] office space, vehicles, insurances, and employee staff levels." In a letter dated
March 19, 1990, Clonts purportedly "represented that [Williams Investigative's] engagement would continue." Alleging that
defendant "has never given notice of termination as required under Section 15 of the contract[,]" Williams Investigative demanded
contractual damages as well as OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees. Williams Investigative further sought to recover expenses
it incurred and profits it anticipated as a result of its detrimental reliance on defendant's assertions of continued security
work, alleging that defendant "should be estopped from relying upon provisions in the contract limiting its liability." As
a separate claim, Tim Williams sought to recover $142,329 he allegedly loaned Williams Investigative between January 3, 1990,
and August 28, 1990, on the ground that "but for the representations and assurances by Kemira, through Mr. Clonts, Mr. Williams
and [Williams Investigative] would not have procured and expended these funds."

👋 Do you love Kemira v. Williams Investigative books? Please share your friends!

Kemira v. Williams Investigative (Court of Appeals of Georgia) Book Reviews 2024

Court of Appeals of Georgia - Kemira v. Williams Investigative Discussions & Comments

Have you read this book yet? What do you think about Kemira v. Williams Investigative by Court of Appeals of Georgia book? Ask the bookpedia.co community a question about Kemira v. Williams Investigative!