Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff leased a new 2021 Volkswagen Atlas from Galpin Volkswagen, LLC, and experienced several issues with the vehicle, including problems with the check engine and airbag lights, ignition, and door locks. After multiple repair attempts and delays due to a backordered part, the plaintiff requested Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VWGA) to repurchase the vehicle. VWGA offered to repurchase the vehicle, including reimbursement for payments made and additional attorney fees, but included a financial confidentiality provision in the offer. Plaintiff did not accept the offer and continued to use the vehicle.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, VWGA and Galpin, on the plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims. The court found that VWGA’s offer to repurchase the vehicle was prompt and compliant with the Song-Beverly Act, including the calculation of the mileage offset and the inclusion of a financial confidentiality provision. The court concluded that the plaintiff could not prove damages for the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, as VWGA’s offer exceeded the restitution amount required by the Act.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that VWGA’s offer was prompt and compliant with the Act, including the use of the vehicle’s agreed value for the mileage offset calculation. The court also determined that the financial confidentiality provision was permissible under the Act. As a result, the plaintiff could not prove the necessary elements for breach of express or implied warranty claims, and the summary judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc." on Justia Law

CKY, Inc. entered into a fixed-price construction contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in October 2012. CKY encountered unexpected conditions, including heavy rainfall and undisclosed culverts, which led to additional expenses. CKY sought compensation for these expenses, but the Corps denied the requests. CKY then filed a claim under the Contract Disputes Act, seeking $1,146,226 for the additional costs incurred. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) ruled in favor of CKY regarding the undisclosed culverts but denied compensation for other claims.The Board awarded CKY $185,000 plus interest for the expenses related to the undisclosed culverts. CKY then applied for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Board granted the application, concluding that the government’s position regarding the undisclosed culverts was not substantially justified. The Board limited its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position on the specific claim where CKY prevailed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Board erred by categorically narrowing its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position and to the specific claim on which CKY prevailed. The court emphasized that the substantial-justification inquiry should consider both the agency’s pre-litigation conduct and its litigation position, and should treat the case as an inclusive whole rather than focusing on individual claims. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration without the categorical limitations previously applied. View "In Re SECRETARY OF THE ARMY " on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a roofing business owner, sought a judgment declaring that the defendant, a workers' compensation insurance carrier, was obligated to defend and indemnify him in connection with a claim filed by his employee. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, determining that the defendant did not effectively cancel the workers' compensation insurance policy. The court found that the conflicting notices provided by the defendant, including a noncooperation notice and a cancellation notice, did not constitute an unambiguous and unequivocal notice of cancellation.The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the defendant effectively canceled the policy before the employee's injury by complying with the statutory requirements of § 31-348, which governs the reporting and cancellation of workers' compensation insurance policies. The plaintiff argued that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the cancellation notice effectively canceled the policy.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that insurers must strictly comply with § 31-348 when canceling a workers' compensation insurance policy. However, compliance with the statute does not supplant an insurer's obligations under contract law, which requires that a notice of cancellation must be definite, certain, and unambiguous. The court held that the Appellate Court incorrectly limited its analysis to the statutory compliance and failed to consider all relevant communications between the parties.The Supreme Court found that the defendant's notice of cancellation was not objectively definite and certain due to the conflicting noncooperation and cancellation notices, which provided indefinite and ambiguous information about the status of the plaintiff's insurance coverage. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case with direction to affirm the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff. View "Napolitano v. Ace American Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Steven Andrew Clem, the former owner of a defunct homebuilding company, appealed a judgment regarding the nondischargeability of a debt incurred from a failed home construction project. An arbitration panel had found Clem personally liable to LaDainian and LaTorsha Tomlinson for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). Clem subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and the Tomlinsons initiated an adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court determined that Clem had obtained over $660,000 from the Tomlinsons through false representation or false pretenses, making the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).The bankruptcy court's decision was based on findings that Clem had committed fraud by nondisclosure during the performance of the contract, including failing to inform the Tomlinsons about the switch from concrete piers to helical steel piers, failing to disclose the puncturing of a water line, and misrepresenting the purchase of a Builder’s Risk insurance policy. The court also found that Clem failed to provide proper accounting for the Tomlinsons' funds. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred in not applying collateral estoppel to the arbitration findings, which had already determined that Clem's actions did not constitute knowing violations of the DTPA or fraud. The appellate court found that the issues of fraudulent misrepresentation and nondisclosure had been fully litigated in the arbitration, and the arbitration panel had explicitly found no fraud or knowing DTPA violations.The Fifth Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Clem, holding that the Tomlinsons were collaterally estopped from relitigating the fraud claims and that Clem's conduct did not meet the criteria for nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(2)(A). View "Clem v. Tomlinson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Shareholder Representative Services LLC, acting as the Equityholder Representative, filed a breach of contract action against Defendant, Renesas Electronics Corporation. The dispute arises from a 2021 Merger Agreement under which Renesas acquired Celeno Communications Incorporated. Plaintiff alleges that Renesas failed to pay two Earn-Out Milestone payments related to the development of a semiconductor chip, the [REDACTED] Product, as stipulated in the Merger Agreement. Plaintiff seeks damages and specific performance of certain contractual provisions.The Court of Chancery assigned the action to the current court on November 6, 2023. Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint on October 31, 2023, and Renesas moved to partially dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff then filed a Verified Amended Complaint on February 28, 2024, asserting four breach of contract claims. Renesas sought dismissal of Counts One, Two, and Four. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Renesas replied. A hearing was held on September 5, 2024, after which the court took the motion under advisement.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware reviewed the case. The court granted in part and denied in part Renesas's partial motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion regarding Counts One and Two, finding that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the Tape-Out Milestone and Mass Production Milestone were met, despite Renesas's arguments to the contrary. However, the court granted the motion regarding Count Four, determining that specific performance of the meeting requirement was not warranted, as monetary damages would provide an adequate remedy. The court found that the contractual provision establishing irreparable harm was sufficient but noted that the ultimate relief sought was payment of the Earn-Out Amounts, not a meeting. View "Shareholder Representative Service LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp." on Justia Law

Pharma Conference Education, Inc. entered into an agreement with the University of Tennessee Health Science Center to produce pharmaceutical continuing education programs "as is feasible." The Health Science Center terminated the agreement before any programs were held. Pharma sued to enforce the agreement, but the State argued that the agreement lacked consideration and was not a valid contract. The key issue was whether the promise to produce programs "as is feasible" constituted consideration or was an illusory promise.The Tennessee Claims Commission granted summary judgment in favor of the State, concluding that the agreement lacked consideration because Pharma's promise was illusory. The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that Pharma's promise gave it complete discretion and was therefore illusory. Both courts relied on the deposition testimony of Pharma's president, John W. Smith, to support their conclusions.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and held that Pharma's promise to produce as many programs "as is feasible" constitutes adequate consideration. The Court explained that the term "feasible" has an objective meaning and does not give Pharma unfettered discretion. The Court also noted that the statutory presumption of consideration under Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-50-103 applies, and the State failed to rebut this presumption. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the Claims Commission for further proceedings, including consideration of the State's argument regarding mutual assent. View "Pharma Conference Education, Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

Eiden Construction, LLC (Eiden) entered into a subcontract with Hogan & Associates Builders, LLC (Hogan) for earthwork and utilities on a school construction project. Hogan sued Eiden and its bonding company, AMCO Insurance Company (AMCO), for breach of contract, claiming Eiden failed to complete its work, including draining sewage lagoons and constructing a fire pond. Eiden counterclaimed for unpaid work, arguing it was not responsible for draining the lagoons and that Hogan did not comply with the subcontract’s notice and opportunity to cure provisions. AMCO argued it was not liable under the performance bond because Eiden did not breach the subcontract and Hogan did not provide proper notice.The District Court of Uinta County found for Hogan on the claim regarding the sewage lagoons but not on other claims, ruling AMCO was not liable under the bond due to lack of notice. Eiden and Hogan both appealed. Eiden argued the court erred in finding it responsible for draining the lagoons and in awarding Hogan damages billed to an associated company. Hogan contended the court erred in not awarding damages for other work and in its calculation of prejudgment interest.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held Eiden breached the subcontract by not draining the lagoons and that Hogan was entitled to recover costs for supplementing Eiden’s work. The court found Eiden’s late completion of the septic system justified Hogan’s directive to expedite lagoon drainage. It also ruled Hogan properly paid the supplemental contractors, despite invoices being sent to an associated company. The court rejected Hogan’s claims for additional damages, concluding Eiden complied with the notice to cure provisions for the fire pond and other work. The court also upheld the lower court’s calculation of prejudgment interest, applying the offset before calculating interest. View "Hogan & Associates Builders, LLC v. Eiden Construction, LLC" on Justia Law

Aenergy, S.A. (Aenergy) sought damages from the Republic of Angola for unpaid work related to power turbines to be installed in Angola. Aenergy had previously entered into contracts with Angolan utility subsidiaries to construct, supply, and maintain power plants and water infrastructure. The contracts involved General Electric (GE) turbines and were financed by a credit line from GE Capital. Aenergy alleged that a GE accounting error led to forged contract amendments, resulting in the Angolan government terminating the contracts and seizing turbines.Aenergy initially filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), which dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds. The court found that Angola was an adequate alternative forum for the dispute. The Second Circuit affirmed this decision, emphasizing that Aenergy could bring similar claims in Angola, even if the breach-of-contract claim was time-barred. Aenergy's requests for rehearing and certiorari were denied.Aenergy then filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, focusing on breach of contract for unpaid work. The district court dismissed the case, citing issue preclusion based on the prior SDNY and Second Circuit rulings. The court also conducted a fresh forum non conveniens analysis, concluding that Angola remained the appropriate forum.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that issue preclusion applied because the adequacy of Angola as an alternative forum had already been determined in the previous litigation. The court found that Aenergy's trimmed-down complaint did not change the forum non conveniens analysis, and the Supreme Court of Angola's subsequent dismissal of Aenergy's administrative action did not alter the adequacy of Angola as a forum. View "Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola" on Justia Law

Employee Paul Westcott was terminated by his employer, Mack Molding Co., Inc., for lying about secretly recording conversations at work. Westcott sued the employer, claiming that his recording activities were protected under Vermont’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) and Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA), and also alleged breach of contract and promissory estoppel.The Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, granted summary judgment to the employer. The court concluded that Westcott’s recording activities were not protected under FEPA or WCA. It also found that Westcott could not sustain his breach-of-contract claim because the employee handbook clearly stated that employment was at-will and could be terminated for any reason. Additionally, the court held that Westcott’s promissory estoppel claim failed because his termination was not connected to any promise made by the employer regarding his return to work after short-term disability leave.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that Westcott’s covert recording of workplace conversations did not constitute protected activity under FEPA or WCA. The court also agreed that the employee handbook did not create a binding contract that altered Westcott’s at-will employment status. Furthermore, the court found no basis for the promissory estoppel claim, as there was no specific promise breached by the employer related to Westcott’s termination.In summary, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer, concluding that Westcott’s recording activities were not protected, his employment was at-will, and there was no breach of a specific promise that could support a promissory estoppel claim. View "Westcott v. Mack Molding, Co., Inc." on Justia Law

In January 2019, Raymond Robinson and his son sued Emerald Homes, L.L.C., and 21st Mortgage Corporation in the Baldwin Circuit Court. Robinson had contracted with Emerald to purchase a mobile home, financed by a loan from 21st Mortgage. After tearing down his existing house in preparation for the new mobile home, the loan was not completed, allegedly due to Emerald and/or 21st Mortgage's refusal to finalize the transaction. The complaint included claims of breach of contract, misrepresentation, suppression, and negligence, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.The trial court compelled arbitration for claims against Emerald and granted summary judgment in favor of 21st Mortgage on Raymond's claims. The case proceeded to a jury trial on Robinson's claims against 21st Mortgage. The jury found in favor of Robinson on promissory fraud and the tort of outrage, awarding him $2,980,000 in total damages. 21st Mortgage's post-trial motions, including for judgment as a matter of law (JML), were denied.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It held that Robinson did not present substantial evidence of promissory fraud, as he failed to prove that 21st Mortgage had no intention to perform the loan promise at the time it was made or intended to deceive him. The court also found that Robinson did not meet all the conditions required for the loan, and the failure to close the loan was not due to any fraudulent intent by 21st Mortgage.Regarding the tort of outrage, the court held that the conduct of 21st Mortgage did not meet the extreme and outrageous standard required for such a claim. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "21st Mortgage Corporation v. Robinson" on Justia Law