John and Lori Finstad owned 80 acres of a section of land in Ransom County and leased 240 adjacent acres in the same section from Willis and Doris Olson. The Ranson-Sargent Water Users District was considering this tract of land as a potential site to drill water wells. In 1997, the Finstads and the Olsons granted to the District options to purchase the land. The options also allowed the Finstads and the Olsons to lease back the property for five years, after which they had a nonassignable right of first refusal to lease back the property for an additional five years. The Finstads appealed from a judgment awarding them $53,000.99 in damages and interest in their action against the District for breach of the lease-back provisions of an option agreement between the parties. The District cross-appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred as a matter of law in ruling the economic duress doctrine relieved the Finstads of their obligations under a subsequent agreement and release they had entered into with the District. Because the agreement and release is valid and enforceable, the Court reversed the judgment. View "Finstad v. Ransom-Sargent Water Users, Inc." on Justia Law

A.E.M. Electric Services Corporation, a general contractor, contracted with Transtar Electric, Inc., a subcontractor, to provide electrical services for the installation of a pool at Holiday Inn. A.E.M. did not pay Transtar for its last three invoices because the owner of the project had failed to pay A.E.M. for the work performed by Transtar. A.E.M. alleged that the contract between the parties, which used the phrase “receipt of payment by contractor from the owner for work performed by subcontractor is a condition precedent to payment by contractor to subcontractor for that work”, was sufficient to establish a pay-if-paid payment provision. The court of appeals concluded that the payment provision in the contract was not specific enough to show that both parties understood and agreed that the risk of the owner’s nonpayment would be borne by Transtar instead of A.E.M. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the use of the term “condition precedent” was an explicit statement of the parties’ intent to transfer the risk of the project owner’s nonpayment from A.E.M. to Transtar. View "Transtar Elec., Inc. v. A.E.M. Elec. Servs. Corp." on Justia Law

Buyers agreed to buy a condominium from Seller pursuant to a purchase agreement. Buyers demanded that Seller fix a minor electrical problem as a condition of purchase, which led to this protracted litigation. In the first appeal, the court of appeals concluded that Buyers breached the contract with their unreasonable demand and remanded for the trial court to determine damages. The trial court awarded Seller $93,972 in damages. Seller appealed, arguing that she reasonably mitigated her damages and that the trial court erred in calculating damages. Buyers cross-appealed. The court of appeals reversed and awarded only $117 in damages, concluding that Seller could have avoided all damages except a $117 repair bill if she had responded to Buyers’ demand to fix the electrical problem, thus preserving the agreement. The Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion (1) by finding that Seller could have mitigated her damages by selling her condo in 2007 rather than waiting until 2011; and (2) in refusing to find that Seller’s duty to mitigate required yielding to the Buyers’ breach. View "Fischer v. Heymann" on Justia Law

BVS filed suit against CDW over a dispute regarding BVS's contract with CDW for a computer storage area network (SAN). The court agreed with the district court's finding that BVS's original purchase order constituted an offer and that CDW accepted that offer when it sent a purchase order to Arrow. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred when it ruled, as a matter of law, that the Invoice - sent after offer and acceptance had already created a contract - integrated the contract with respect to terms not included in either BVS's offer or CDW's acceptance. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "BVS, Inc. v. CDW Direct, LLC" on Justia Law

Meadow Brook owned land that it developed into lots with covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Meadow Brook then decided to develop an undeveloped tract as an independent subdivision. The existing homeowners, however, argued that the covenants granted them exclusive use of three roads that future homeowners would need to use to access the subdivision. A court concluded that the covenants did not reserve an easement over the three roads for use by future lot owners. First American Title Insurance Company and First American Title Company of Montana (collectively, First American), which had issued Meadow Brook a title insurance policy, subsequently denied Meadow Brook’s claim for coverage and refused to further defend against the homeowners’ counterclaims. Meadow Brook settled with the homeowners in the easement litigation and then sued First American for, inter alia, breach of contract and negligence. The district court granted summary judgment to Meadow Brook as to the breach of contract claim, concluding First American had insured under the policy that the three roads would be open to public access. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting Meadow Brook’s motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. View "Meadow Brook, LLP v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant Benjamin Taub founded Dataspace, Incorporated, in 1994. In 2002, Taub hired plaintiff Rama Madugula as vice president of sales and business development for Dataspace. Around this time, Dataspace also hired an individual named Andrew Flower. Taub was Dataspace's sole shareholder until 2004, when Madugula and Flower became part owners, with Madugula purchasing 29% of the outstanding shares and Flower purchasing 20%. Pursuant to a stockholders agreement, Taub became president, secretary, and treasurer of Dataspace, while Madugula and Flower became vice presidents. After becoming a shareholder, Madugula continued to work for Dataspace. In 2007, Flower exercised his right under the buy-sell agreement and voluntarily withdrew from Dataspace. Taub and Madugula purchased Flower's shares, increasing Madugula's interest to about 36% of the shares. Around this time, with Dataspace allegedly struggling, Taub switched the focus of Dataspace to marketing a new product that it developed called JPAS, a software platform. At the time, Madugula did not object to the new focus. In August 2007, Taub terminated Madugula's employment with Dataspace. Because of his termination, Madugula no longer received a salary from Dataspace, but he maintained his board position and his interest in the company. Madugula sued Taub and Dataspace, asserting: (1) shareholder; (2) breach of the duty of good faith; (3) common-law fraud and misrepresentation; (4) exemplary damages; (5) an appointment of a receiver; and (6) an accounting of Dataspace. Madugula sought damages, the removal of Taub as a director of Dataspace, the appointment of a receiver to protect the value of his stock in Dataspace, an accounting of Dataspace, and all other relief that he was entitled to in equity or law. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Taub and Dataspace, dismissing all counts against them except Madugula's claim of shareholder oppression. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaint language of Michigan's shareholder-oppression statute, did not afford a claimant a right to a jury trial and, instead, expressed a legislative intent to have shareholder-oppression claims heard by a court of equity. Furthermore, the Court held that violations of a shareholder agreement may constitute evidence of shareholder oppression pursuant to the statute. Because the trial court erred by submitting plaintiff's claim to the jury and allowing it to award an equitable remedy, the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff. View "Madugula v. Taub" on Justia Law

Randy Betz hired attorney Vincent Megna to represent him in a dispute with Diamond Jim’s Auto Sales. Megna filed a lawsuit on Betz’s behalf under two fee-shifting statutes. During the litigation, Betz and Diamond Jim’s settled the case without their attorneys’ knowledge or approval. The settlement agreement did not address statutory attorney’s fees. Megna moved to recover his statutory fees from Diamond Jim. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the statutory right to recover attorney’s fees belonged to Betz and not his attorneys and that the settlement agreement was a binding contract between Betz and Diamond Jim’s. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the settlement agreement was void due to public policy concerns with enforcing settlements made “behind the backs” of the attorneys in cases brought under fee-shifting statutes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the statutory right to recover attorney’s fees belonged to Betz, and Betz did not assign his right to recover those fees to Megna in their fee agreement; and (2) therefore, Megna’s remedy against Diamond Jim’s was foreclosed. View "Betz v. Diamond Jim's Auto Sales" on Justia Law

Robert Kraft formed Electronic Printing Systems, Inc. (the company), which was rebranded, restructured, and sold to various entities. This case involved several leases that the company and its progenies had with Anthony Gagliano & Co., Inc. (Gagliano). Gagliano filed claims against defendants New Electronic Printing Systems, LLC; Openfirst, LLC; Robert Kraft; and Quad/Graphics, Inc. concerning rent allegedly owned under several commercial leases. The circuit court granted (1) granted summary judgment for Quad/Graphics, the last entity to acquire assets of the company; and (2) after trial, directed a verdict in favor of Defendants, concluding that Gagliano did not give sufficient notice to extend the leases to the time when the alleged breach occurred. The court of appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of Quad/Graphics and reversed the circuit court’s directed verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Gagliano’s notice was valid because Gagliano gave sufficient notice to extend the leases to the time when the alleged breach occurred; and (2) Qaud/Graphics was not liable to Gagliano because Quad/Graphics was a subtenant of the lessee, not an assignee of the leases. View "Anthony Gagliano & Co., Inc. v. Openfirst, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Midland, contending that the plain language of an annuity contract dictates that the term is zero or that, at minimum, Midland's proffered term is unreasonable. Completely absent from the annuity contract was any indication about the interest rate to be applied in the event that Midland was no longer offering new certificates of the annuity. The court concluded that the district court did not err in this case where Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 204 permitted the district court to supply a term for the missing value that is reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Midland. View "Murr v. Midland National Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

MHFS filed suit against the County, the Commission, and others for interfering with its business operations at the Baxter County Airport. The court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing MHFS's claims for breach of contract where MHFS did not allege any breach of contract distinct from the breach of the duty to act in good faith; Arkansas law does not recognize a "continuing tort" theory; even if the court were to assume such acts were intentional, MHFS failed to state a claim for intentional interference with its business relationship; the district court correctly dismissed MHFS's civil rights claims for denial of procedural due process where MHFS was not deprived of any property or liberty interest; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend following its dismissal of the action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Mountain Home Flight Service v. Baxter County, et al." on Justia Law