Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A business agreement was made in early 2020 for the rental of a yacht for an event. The agreement involved a payment of $18,280, which was to cover a deposit and a down payment toward the rental fee. The event was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the party that made the payment requested a refund. The yacht provider did not return the funds. The party seeking the refund sued under several theories, including unjust enrichment and breach of contract.After mandatory arbitration resulted in an award for the plaintiff, the defendant requested a trial de novo, and the matter proceeded under Nevada’s Short Trial Program. A short trial judge rendered a proposed judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to this proposed judgment, but the short trial judge, after consulting with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, ruled on the objection and later denied the defendant’s NRCP 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial. The district court then entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, apparently approving the short trial judge’s proposed judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a short trial judge has authority to adjudicate objections to a proposed judgment and post-judgment NRCP 59 motions. The court held that under the plain language of NSTR 3(d), only the district court—not a short trial judge—may review and adjudicate objections to proposed judgments and NRCP 59 motions. The court found that the short trial judge exceeded her authority by ruling on these matters. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s judgment and the short trial judge’s post-judgment orders, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VEGAS AQUA, LLC VS. JUPITOR CORP." on Justia Law

Richard Marschner and Roxane Marschner divorced in 2016 after reaching a settlement agreement dividing their marital property. Richard received a lump sum from Roxane’s retirement account, and Roxane was to receive a portion of Richard’s Army National Guard pension and Federal Employees’ Retirement System benefits upon his retirement. The divorce judgment included provisions that if Richard took action to prevent or reduce Roxane’s share of his military retirement pay—including by waiving retirement pay in favor of disability pay—he would be required to indemnify Roxane. Both parties waived spousal support in the original settlement.After Richard was separated from the National Guard for medical reasons, he began receiving military disability retired pay and waived all his retirement pay. When Roxane attempted to collect her share, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service denied her request, stating that disability pay was not divisible under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act. Roxane then sought an amended judgment or redistribution of the marital estate from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District. The district court awarded Roxane spousal support equivalent to her lost share of Richard’s retirement pay, relying on the indemnification provision and reasoning that federal law did not prevent enforcement of the parties’ agreement.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether federal law preempts enforcement of the indemnification provision. The court held that federal law, as interpreted in Howell v. Howell, prohibits state courts from dividing military disability retired pay or enforcing indemnification provisions, even if contractually agreed upon. The district court’s award of spousal support was deemed an impermissible division of disability pay. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the amended judgment. View "Marschner v. Marschner" on Justia Law

A black-owned construction company was not invited to bid as general contractor on a major Boston public housing redevelopment project after participating in pre-construction work. Years earlier, the developer had called the company’s president to discuss possible involvement, but the parties disputed what promises, if any, were made during that conversation. The construction company performed pre-construction work and was later selected as general contractor for the first phase (Camden), but after performance and communication issues arose during that project, the developer chose a different, white-owned company for the second phase (Lenox). The construction company did not protest at the time but later sued, alleging breach of contract, quasi-contract, violation of Massachusetts consumer protection law, and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.The matter was first brought in Massachusetts state court, then removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on federal question jurisdiction. After discovery, the developer moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment for the developer, finding no enforceable contract or promise had been made regarding the Lenox phase, that the quasi-contract and Chapter 93A claims failed as derivative, and that there was insufficient evidence of racial discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The First Circuit held that the summary judgment record did not contain evidence from which a reasonable jury could find an enforceable implied-in-fact contract or a promise sufficient for promissory estoppel. It further held that the plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact regarding pretext or discriminatory intent under § 1981, given the legitimate business reasons cited for the company’s exclusion. Thus, summary judgment on all claims was proper. View "John B. Cruz Construction Co. v. Beacon Communities Corp." on Justia Law

An environmental remediation company and an oil corporation entered into a Master Services Contract in 2008, which included a Texas choice-of-law and venue provision and an indemnification clause requiring the remediation company to defend and indemnify the oil corporation for claims arising from violations of applicable laws. In 2012, it was discovered that the remediation company’s then-president, along with subcontractors, had engaged in fraudulent overbilling for work performed for the oil corporation. Upon discovery, ownership of the remediation company changed hands, and litigation ensued in Louisiana state court. The remediation company’s new owner alleged that the oil corporation’s employee was complicit in the fraud, making the corporation vicariously liable.The oil corporation then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment that the remediation company had a duty to defend and indemnify it in the Louisiana litigation, and also sought attorney’s fees as damages for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for the oil corporation, holding that Texas law applied, the remediation company owed both a duty to defend and to indemnify, and awarding attorney’s fees for both the Texas and Louisiana lawsuits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo regarding summary judgment and attorney’s fees. The appellate court held that Texas law governed under the contract’s choice-of-law clause since Louisiana did not have a more significant relationship or materially greater interest, and applying Texas law did not contravene Louisiana public policy. The indemnity provision was not void as against public policy or for illegality. The court affirmed the duty to defend and to indemnify, but vacated the judgment to the extent it would require indemnification for punitive and exemplary damages, and remanded for modification. It also vacated attorney’s fees awarded for the underlying Louisiana litigation, affirming only those fees related to the declaratory judgment action. View "Anadarko v. Alternative Environmental Solutions" on Justia Law

A fire severely damaged a church building in southeastern Indiana. The church promptly notified its insurer, which had issued a policy covering actual cash value (subject to depreciation) and additional replacement-cost benefits if the property was repaired or replaced “as soon as reasonably possible.” The parties disputed the cost of rebuilding, but the insurer paid the church nearly $1.7 million—the undisputed actual cash value and additional agreed amounts—while the church continued to contest the estimates and did not begin repairs or replacement. About two years after the fire, the church sued the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith denial of replacement-cost benefits.The insurer removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the church had not complied with the policy’s requirement to repair or replace the property promptly. The church, represented by counsel, responded with arguments about factual disputes over estimates and the credibility of insurance adjusters, but did not address the legal basis concerning the contractual precondition for replacement-cost benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding the church had failed to engage with the insurer’s core argument.On appeal, with new counsel, the church raised for the first time that ongoing disputes over replacement-cost estimates excused its failure to begin repairs, citing two Indiana Court of Appeals cases. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that this argument was waived because it was not presented to the district court. The Seventh Circuit further held that plain-error review in civil cases is available only in extraordinary circumstances not present here. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the insurer. View "Crothersville Lighthouse Tabernacle Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

An investment fund specializing in gems and minerals filed for bankruptcy in October 2019. Prior to this, one of the fund’s managing members, through his own companies, had engaged a law firm to represent him and his separate business interests in connection with federal investigations and anticipated arbitration involving the fund and its leadership. The law firm’s engagement letters were addressed to the individual and his other company, not the fund itself, and did not state that the fund was responsible for payment. Some of the legal work benefited all respondents, including the fund, and the fund issued two checks to the law firm. However, a significant balance remained unpaid.During the bankruptcy proceedings, the law firm filed a claim against the fund for unpaid legal fees. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, appointed to represent the fund’s equity holders, objected, arguing the fund was not liable for the debt. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the Equity Committee, finding the fund had no obligation to pay the law firm based on the evidence presented. The law firm appealed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s affirmance de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the law firm had not provided sufficient evidence of an enforceable promise by the fund to pay the legal fees, either as a primary obligor or under promissory estoppel. Additionally, the court found that neither Wisconsin’s statutory indemnification provision for LLC managers and members nor the fund’s operating agreement extended indemnification rights to the individual who had retained the law firm. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ballard Spahr LLP v Official Committee of Equity Security Holders" on Justia Law

A homeowner alleged that he hired a roofing company in 2011 to install a specific type of roof on his residence. After installation, problems with roof materials became apparent, including issues with a protective layer that remained unresolved despite multiple repair attempts by both the roofing company and the manufacturer over more than a decade. The homeowner asserted that these defects persisted, and that communication from the roofing company ceased in early 2024. As a result, he filed a lawsuit in Etowah County, Alabama, alleging breach of express and implied warranties, as well as negligent or wanton installation and repair, and sought damages.The roofing company moved to dismiss the lawsuit for improper venue, arguing that a forum-selection clause in a “Service Agreement” required all disputes to be heard in Madison County, Alabama. The company attached an unsigned and undated sample agreement to its motion, but did not produce a copy signed by the homeowner or any evidence that the homeowner had agreed to such a clause. The homeowner responded that he had never signed, nor was he aware of, the agreement submitted by the company and also challenged the clause’s reasonableness. The Etowah Circuit Court denied the company’s motion to dismiss for improper venue.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the company’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to compel the lower court to dismiss the case or transfer it to Madison County. The Supreme Court held that the company failed to meet its burden of proving that the forum-selection clause applied, as it did not present evidence linking the blank agreement to the parties’ actual contract. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama denied the petition, concluding that the circuit court did not clearly err in refusing to dismiss or transfer the case. View "Ex parte Continental Roofing Company, LLC" on Justia Law

The case centers on a dispute involving a pharmaceutical company founded by the plaintiff, who also served as its CEO. The plaintiff obtained investment from a Canadian entity controlled by one of the defendants, who later became a director. The company entered into a profitable licensing agreement for a drug, and the plaintiff claims he was personally entitled to 30% of the profits based on an oral agreement. The investor and his affiliates, however, allege that the plaintiff wrongfully diverted corporate assets by taking this share. After disagreements arose, the investor replaced himself and another director on the board with officers from his own affiliates, who began investigating the alleged diversion. In response, the plaintiff initiated litigation, asserting that the investigation was a breach of fiduciary duty and that the investor and his affiliates acted in bad faith for their own benefit.Previously, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware was asked to consider several claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference against the investor, his affiliates, and the two new directors. The investor’s affiliate moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court found it had no jurisdiction over the affiliate. The court also examined whether it had jurisdiction over the investor for claims other than those related to his service as a director, finding it did not because the complaint failed to state a viable claim against him in that capacity.In the present decision, the Court of Chancery held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the investor’s affiliate and over the investor in his non-director capacities, dismissing those claims without prejudice. The court further dismissed with prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy claims against the directors and the investor in his director capacity, finding no viable claims were stated. However, the court allowed the plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment regarding his right to the profits from the drug to proceed against the company, provided an amended complaint is filed naming the company as a proper defendant. View "MacLaughlan v. Einheiber" on Justia Law

H.A.T., LLC entered into a bond-for-deed contract with Greenleaf Apartments, LLC to purchase three buildings in Portland for $1 million, with a down payment and monthly installments. H.A.T. took possession but would not receive title until the note was fully paid, and the parties executed additional agreements to address Greenleaf's concerns and clarify remedies for default. Over time, H.A.T. became delinquent in its payments, and Greenleaf lent additional funds to cover repairs after a series of casualty events. Despite proposals to consolidate debts and efforts to sell the property, H.A.T. remained in default. Greenleaf ultimately exercised its right under a memorandum agreement to terminate the contract without notice upon default, retaking possession of the property.H.A.T. then filed suit in the Maine Business and Consumer Docket, alleging various claims, including breach of contract and entitlement to insurance proceeds, while Greenleaf counterclaimed for breach of contract. The court dismissed claims against Greenleaf's counsel and, after a bench trial, ruled in favor of Greenleaf on all claims. The court found that H.A.T. had defaulted on payment obligations, that Greenleaf was justified in terminating the contract, and that H.A.T. was not entitled to insurance proceeds or a setoff. The final judgment awarded Greenleaf costs and attorney fees.On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment. The Court held that H.A.T. breached the contract by missing payments, Greenleaf had no obligation to provide H.A.T. with insurance proceeds, and H.A.T. was not entitled to notice of a right to cure because the statutory notice provision for foreclosures did not apply to commercial purchasers like H.A.T. The court concluded the statute was intended to protect homeowners, not commercial investors. Judgment was affirmed. View "H.A.T., LLC v. Greenleaf Apartmetns, LLC" on Justia Law

The case concerns a failed sale of a bar and restaurant in Bismarck, North Dakota. Neil Galpin, as assignee of Galpin Entertainment, sought to recover a $100,000 earnest money deposit after Cantina Holdings, LLC and Clay Butte Holdings, LLC (the buyers) did not complete the purchase. The parties had executed a confidential offer letter, which required the deposit and stated it would become non-refundable after the buyer’s due diligence period expired, unless the buyer notified the seller of its intent not to proceed before that date. Later, the parties signed a standard form purchase agreement that both incorporated the confidential letter and included a conflicting, pre-printed provision stating that if financing failed after a certain date, the earnest money would be returned to the buyer. The transaction never closed, and Galpin Entertainment ultimately sold the property to someone else.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, heard the case in a bench trial. The court concluded that the specially drafted provision in the confidential letter, rather than the standard form language in the purchase agreement, controlled the disposition of the earnest money. It found that the buyers did not properly exercise their right to terminate before the due diligence deadline and that Galpin did not breach the contract by failing to negotiate the contract for deed in good faith. Judgment was entered in favor of Neil Galpin for the earnest money, and the buyers’ counterclaims were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that, when conflicting contract provisions exist, specially drafted terms control over standard form language, especially where the parties who caused the uncertainty seek to benefit from it. The court also found no clear error in the district court’s finding that Galpin negotiated in good faith. View "Galpin v. Cantina Holdings" on Justia Law