Kao v. CardConnect Corp., 16-CV-5707. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180927d44
Visitors: 21
Filed: Sep. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR. , District Judge . AND NOW, this 26 th day of September, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms of the parties' implied contract are as follows: CardConnect agreed to provide its services for the fees and rates set forth in each Plaintiff's service contract and is limited to those terms absent a mutual modification of the implied contract. All unsolicited and unilateral changes made in various billing statements that were not by mutual agreement are not binding
Summary: ORDER J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR. , District Judge . AND NOW, this 26 th day of September, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms of the parties' implied contract are as follows: CardConnect agreed to provide its services for the fees and rates set forth in each Plaintiff's service contract and is limited to those terms absent a mutual modification of the implied contract. All unsolicited and unilateral changes made in various billing statements that were not by mutual agreement are not binding o..
More
ORDER
J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR., District Judge.
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms of the parties' implied contract are as follows:
CardConnect agreed to provide its services for the fees and rates set forth in each Plaintiff's service contract and is limited to those terms absent a mutual modification of the implied contract. All unsolicited and unilateral changes made in various billing statements that were not by mutual agreement are not binding on the plaintiffs. In the absence of an allegation by CardConnect that a plaintiff agreed to a contract modification, the fees originally set forth stand.
Source: Leagle
