Contractual Claim

Contractual Claim

An amount that by legal agreement must be paid periodically to the buyer of a security; contractual claim may also specify the time at which the principal must be repaid and other details.

Contractual Claim

An amount to which one party of a contract is entitled. For example, if two parties agree to transfer a security in exchange for a fee, that fee is the contractual claim.
References in periodicals archive ?
The Feges case, seven years later, departed from that rationale and recognized that the scope of distribution is not central to determination of a contractual claim, which depends more on its language and expectations of the parties rather than means or manner of dissemination.
Despite the plaintiff's ownership of Fair Port and his contractual claim to the first $200,000 of Fair Port's profits, the fact remains that Avraamov stole from Fair Port, not from the plaintiff, and Fair Port, not the plaintiff, would be entitled to repayment.
The ratio is that, for a tortious claim to be covered by an arbitration clause in a contract, the tortious claims must be closely connected with a parallel or concomitant contractual claim which is at least arguable.
The National Social Security Fund will not pay the Sh1.89 billion estimated contractual claim presented by its contractor in construction of the Hazina Trade Centre in Nairobi.
The worker has no legal, contractual claim on any return at all.
But the wording that follows limits it to only one specific type of contractual claim: tort.
According to NBC, "The $3.2-million payment came as settlement of a larger contractual claim for $7 million filed by DAI against USAID for incurred expenses related to the arrest and incarceration of Gross."
The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the judge, reviving the lawsuit in a July 2012 ruling on the basis that Ginsberg's contractual claim was unrelated to the price, route or service.
By the time the defects became apparent the limitation period for a contractual claim had expired.
This question of jurisdiction depended on three primary, though related, inquiries: (1) whether the language of art XI admitted such claims, given the text and context (that is, parties' intent) of the provision; (2) whether a broad interpretation rendered art XI 'susceptible of almost indefinite expansion'; (13) and (3) the effect of characterisation of a contractual claim as breach of a treaty standard.
The reasoning is that the risk of possible future identity theft in the event of a data breach does not rise to the level of appreciable harm necessary to substantiate a negligence or contractual claim or to support a damages award.