Bruce Marks speaks at RT’s Sanchez Effect in Moscow, Russia

American Perspectives on Global Affairs from Moscow In a recent episode of RT’s Sanchez Effect, host Rick Sanchez welcomed Bruce Marks, a former...

Bruce Marks speaks at ThoughtLeaders4’s Sovereign & States Litigation Summit USA

We’re pleased to announce that Bruce Marks, Founder and Managing Member of Marks & Sokolov, will be speaking at ThoughtLeaders4’s Sovereign...

Bruce Marks Speaks at the Pravo.RU Conference

On September 19, Bruce Marks, Founder and Managing Director of Marks & Sokolov, speaks at the session “Liability Under Control” during...

Sergei Sokolov speaks at the Forbes Federal Legal Forum 2025

On 18 September 2025, Forbes Russia will host the annual Federal Legal Forum in Moscow, a central event for the Russian legal community focusing on...

Marks & Sokolov Secures Another OFAC License for Release of Blocked Russian Client Funds

Marks & Sokolov is pleased to announce another success in our sanctions-related practice: we have obtained an OFAC license authorizing the...

​Updates on the recent Russian-related § 1782 applications – U.S. courts weigh discovery requests tied to sanctions, shareholder disputes, and asset battles.

Section 1782 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code allows parties to seek discovery in U.S. courts for use in foreign proceedings. In recent years, Russian...

M&S Lawyers Recover On U.C.C. Sales Contract

by | Dec 24, 2013 | Results

Hot Tub Hounds, Inc. v. Hot Water, Inc.
Court of Common Pleas, Columbia County Pennsylvania
 
What the Case Involved: Our client sold commercial spa equipment inventory to a retail distributor without a written sales agreement.  Our client invoiced the purchaser, which remitted partial payment.  When the seller demanded further payment, the buyer claimed the invoiced inventory was not fully delivered.  Marks & Sokolov instituted suit for the remaining balance due, plus interest.  As this was a sale of goods between commercial parties, Pennsylvania’s U.C.C. applied.
Result:  Through discovery, Marks & Sokolov established that the buyer’s defense of not receiving the invoiced inventory was precluded because under 13 Pa.C.S. §2201(b), the buyer had 10 days from the receipt of the invoice to challenge its contents and that the buyer’s accounting records indicated receipt and resale of the spa inventory.  A substantial recovery was made in favor of our client.   Tom Sullivan served as lead trial counsel.Hot Tub Hounds, Inc. v. Hot Water, Inc.
Court of Common Pleas, Columbia County Pennsylvania
 
What the Case Involved: Our client sold commercial spa equipment inventory to a retail distributor without a written sales agreement.  Our client invoiced the purchaser, which remitted partial payment.  When the seller demanded further payment, the buyer claimed the invoiced inventory was not fully delivered.  Marks & Sokolov instituted suit for the remaining balance due, plus interest.  As this was a sale of goods between commercial parties, Pennsylvania’s U.C.C. applied.
Result:  Through discovery, Marks & Sokolov established that the buyer’s defense of not receiving the invoiced inventory was precluded because under 13 Pa.C.S. §2201(b), the buyer had 10 days from the receipt of the invoice to challenge its contents and that the buyer’s accounting records indicated receipt and resale of the spa inventory.  A substantial recovery was made in favor of our client.   Tom Sullivan served as lead trial counsel.