Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Taunton Properties, LLC owned 63 townhomes and 3.8 acres of adjacent land in Eagle, Idaho. In 2020, Commercial Northwest, Taunton’s property manager and agent, provided Geringer Capital with documents regarding the property. The documents identified the townhomes as “Woodside Villas,” and included financial statements and tenant information. Geringer sent a written offer (“Offer Letter”) to Taunton Properties, proposing to purchase the 63 townhomes; the Offer Letter identified the Seller only as “Title Holder.” The Offer Letter also stated that, “Buyer and Seller agree to execute a more formal Agreement of Purchase and Sale within thirty (30) days containing market specific terms and the items set forth in this Agreement.” The Offer Letter contained sections for “Title Insurance,” “Proration’s [sic] and Closing Costs,” and “Seller’s Deliveries,” but stated those terms were “to be specified in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.” Peter Taunton, the manager of Taunton Properties, electronically signed the Offer Letter through DocuSign, which presumably returned it to Geringer. One day after signing and returning the Offer Letter, Taunton Properties received a different purchase offer from LCA-CA I, LLC (“LCA”), with a proposed sale price that was $400,000 more than Geringer’s offer. That same day, Peter Taunton advised Geringer that Taunton Properties considered Geringer’s Offer Letter unenforceable and that Taunton Properties would be selling the properties to LCA. Geringer filed a complaint for specific performance, breach of contract, and breach of preliminary agreement against Taunton Properties. The district court granted Respondents’ motions to dismiss. The district court determined: (1) the Offer Letter lacked material terms and represented an agreement to agree; (2) the property description was insufficient under the statute of frauds; and (3) Geringer’s claims for breach of preliminary agreement, tortious interference with contract, and civil conspiracy failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The Idaho Supreme Court concurred with the district court: the Offer Letter failed to satisfy the statute of frauds and was so vague, uncertain, and indefinite that it was unenforceable. As a result, there was no enforceable contract with which to tortiously interfere. View "Geringer Capital v. Taunton Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

Consolidated appeals arose from of a commercial dispute between Southern Lift Trucks, LLC ("Southern"), and Hyundai Construction Equipment Americas, Inc. ("Hyundai Construction") -- an alleged subsidiary of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. ("Hyundai Heavy Industries"). Southern was a heavy-equipment dealer for Hyundai Construction. Southern filed suit against Hyundai Construction and Hyundai Heavy Industries (collectively, as "Hyundai") asserting various claims, including claims under the Alabama Heavy Equipment Dealer Act ("the AHEDA"). Southern also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Hyundai: (1) from unlawfully terminating one of the dealer agreements at issue in these appeals; and (2) from unlawfully adding a second dealer in the territory that was covered under another dealer agreement at issue. In response, Hyundai moved to compel arbitration. The circuit court granted Southern's request for a preliminary injunction and denied Hyundai's motion to compel arbitration. In appeal no. SC-2022-0675, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order insofar as it granted Southern's motion for a preliminary injunction as to the forklift agreement. However, the Court reversed the trial court's order insofar as it issued a preliminary injunction related to the construction-equipment agreement, and remanded the case for the trial court to enter an order consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. In case no. SC-2022-0676, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order insofar as it denied Hyundai's motion to compel arbitration as to any provisions of Southern's declaratory-judgment claim relating to the "enforceability of any provision" of the dealer agreement. However, the Court reversed the trial court's order insofar as it denied Hyundai's motion to compel arbitration as to Southern's other claims, and that case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hyundai Construction Equipment Americas, Inc., et al. v. Southern Lift Trucks, LLC" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, multiple hotel operators challenged a superior court’s orders in a suit against defendants, multiple insurance underwriters, all relating to the denial of coverage during the COVID-19 world health pandemic. Plaintiffs owned and operated twenty-three hotels: four in New Hampshire, eighteen in Massachusetts, and one in New Jersey. Plaintiffs purchased $600 million of insurance coverage from defendants for the policy period from November 1, 2019 to November 1, 2020. With the exception of certain addenda, the relevant language of the policies was identical, stating in part that it “insures against risks of direct physical loss of or damage to property described herein . . . except as hereinafter excluded.” For periods of time, pursuant to governors’ orders, hotels in each of the three states were permitted to provide lodging only to vulnerable populations and to essential workers. These essential workers included healthcare workers, the COVID-19 essential workforce, and other workers responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Beginning in June 2020, plaintiffs’ hotels were permitted to reopen with a number of restrictions on their business operations. Plaintiffs, through their insurance broker, provided notice to defendants they were submitting claims in connection with losses stemming from COVID-19. Plaintiffs sued when these claims denied, arguing that the potential presence of the virus triggered business loss provisions in their respective policies. To this, the New Hampshire Supreme Court disagreed, finding that “[w]hile the presence of the virus might affect how people interact with one another, and interact with the property, it does not render the property useless or uninhabitable, nor distinctly and demonstrably altered.” View "Schleicher & Stebbins Hotels, LLC, et al. v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Co., et al." on Justia Law

In 2015, Towers Watson & Co. (“Towers Watson”), a Delaware company headquartered in Virginia, purchased directors and officers (“D&O”) liability insurance coverage from several insurance companies, including National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (“National Union”) as the primary insurer. Following Towers Watson’s merger with another company, Towers Watson shareholders filed several lawsuits against Towers Watson’s chairman and CEO and others, alleging that the shareholders received below-market consideration for their shares in the merger. The litigation was settled, and Towers Watson sought indemnity coverage from its insurers under the relevant D&O policies. The insurers refused the indemnity request, citing a so-called “bump-up” exclusion in the policies. This declaratory judgment action followed. The district court sided with Towers Watson and held that the bump-up exclusion “does not unambiguously” preclude indemnity coverage for the underlying settlements.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Under Virginia law, it will not do to merely identify any conceivable basis to hold that an insurance-coverage exclusion does not apply before stripping the exclusion of all force. Rather, the language of the exclusion must reasonably lend itself to an “equally possible” interpretation precluding the exclusion’s applicability. Here, however, the district court’s chosen interpretation, which disregarded the Policy’s plain language and inserted terms not included by the parties, cannot be characterized as one of two “equally possible” constructions. View "Towers Watson & Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Sunny sold seasonal merchandise to Walgreens, with Envision as an intermediary. From 2007-2012 Sunny shipped goods directly to Walgreens but routed documents through Envision. Every year Sunny sent documents calling for it to be named the beneficiary of letters of credit to cover the price. Envision passed these to Walgreens, which arranged for the letters of credit. In 2013 Sunny sent the usual documents but Envision substituted its own name for Sunny’s as the beneficiary of the letters of credit. Walgreens sent the letters of credit to Envision, which drew more than $3 million.A jury found that Envision breached its contract with Sunny by not paying it the money drawn on the letters of credit and that Envision had committed fraud. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Envision’s argument that it cannot be liable for fraud because it was not Sunny’s agent or fiduciary and therefore did not have any duty to alert Sunny that it had changed the instructions about who would control the letters of credit. The cooperative business relations between Sunny and Envision from 2007-2012 created a “special relationship” that required Envision to notify Sunny about any deviation in their dealings. View "Sunny Handicraft (H.K.) Ltd. v. Envision This!, LLC" on Justia Law

The landlord is a four-member LLC with a single asset--a building in downtown Napa. The tenant, Stone Brewing, a large beer brewing and retail corporation, operates a brewpub in the building. Stone Brewing did not pay rent for several months during the pandemic. The landlord sued for unlawful detainer. Stone argued it was excused from paying rent because COVID-19 regulations and business interruptions triggered a force majeure provision in its lease.The trial court granted the landlord summary judgment, finding that the force majeure provision only excused performance if the claiming party was unable to meet its obligations due to factors outside its control; the tenant admitted during discovery it had the financial resources to pay rent during the period of the COVID-19 regulations but simply refused to do so. The court of appeal affirmed. The force majeure provision does not apply where the tenant had the ability to meet its contractual obligations but chooses not to perform due to financial constraints. The plain meaning of the force majeure provision does not support an interpretation that ties a party’s obligation to pay rent to its profitability or revenue stream instead of a delay or interruption caused by the force majeure event itself. View "West Pueblo Partners, LLC v. Stone Brewing Co., LLC" on Justia Law

While working for Adnet, Inc. (“Adnet”), Defendants learned of a subcontract that Adnet was attempting to win. Thereafter, Defendants, through their own company, submitted a bid for that same subcontract. After Defendants won the subcontract, Adnet brought claims against them for breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference with a business relationship, and business conspiracy. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Defendants did not compete against Adnet, that Adnet did not have a business expectancy in the subcontract, and that, without proof of an underlying tort, there was no business conspiracy. Adnet appealed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Adnet’s claims for breach of the duty of loyalty and tortious interference with a business relationship. Further, the court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Adnet’s business conspiracy claim and remanded. The court explained that there is sufficient evidence of a direct competition for the subcontract between Adnet and Defendants while they were working for Adnet to bar a grant of summary judgment to Defendants. A reasonable juror could conclude that employees, like Defendants, breach their duty of loyalty to their employer when they learn of a potential business opportunity through their employment and then participate in direct competition with their employer for that opportunity while still employed. View "Adnet, Inc. v. Rohit Soni" on Justia Law

Louis DeGidio, the father of Plaintiffs, began purchasing, distributing, and servicing Industrial Combustion, LLC’s (“IC”) burners for institutional boiler systems in a sales area including most of Minnesota. IC’s non-exclusive distributors are responsible for installing and servicing the IC burners they sell. In 1996, the family incorporated Louis DeGidio, Inc. (“LDI”) and Louis DeGidio Services, Inc. (“LDSI”). LDI continued purchasing burners from IC. LDSI installed and serviced the burners LDI sold, purchasing replacement parts from IC. The two corporations shared the same location, officers, and shareholders. Plaintiffs were joint 50% shareholders and key officers of both. Whatever written agreement was then in effect is not in the record, but it is undisputed that LDI was the distributor. At issue is whether a manufacturer collects an indirect “franchise fee” within the meaning of the Minnesota Franchise Act if it charges the distributor a price based on the retail price the manufacturer paid a third-party vendor for the parts.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed and agreed with the district court the answer is clearly no, and therefore, the distributorship agreement here at issue was not a franchise. The court further agreed that the manufacturer did not breach an oral implied-in-fact contract and was not barred by promissory estoppel when it terminated the DeGidio sales representative without cause. Applying Minnesota law and reviewing de novo, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of IC and its parent company, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. View "Louis DeGidio, Inc. v. Industrial Combustion, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was on active duty with the United States Army. He bought a car from Select Cars of Thornburg in Fredericksburg, Virginia, and financed his purchase with a loan from United Auto Credit Corporation. The loan financed not only the car’s cost but also the cost of Guaranteed Asset Protection. Guaranteed Asset Protection is like extra insurance, covering any amount still due on the car loan after auto insurance is paid out if the car is totaled or stolen. Plaintiff’s claims arise from this single loan. This loan, Plaintiff alleged, violated the Military Lending Act because the loan agreement mandated arbitration and failed to disclose certain information. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the loan was not covered by the Act at all.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a statutory provision must be given the ordinary meaning it had when it was enacted. Relevant dictionaries, carefully considered, sometimes shed light on that ordinary meaning. Yet here, dueling dictionaries provide more than one linguistically permissible meaning.  But by examining the relevant phrase in its statutory context. This context shows that while “the express purpose” can be used in different senses, it is best read in Section 987(i)(6) to mean the specific purpose. This loan was offered for the specific purpose of financing Plaintiff’s car purchase. And that satisfies Section 987(i)(6)’s relevant condition and the Act is inapplicable. View "Jerry Davidson v. United Auto Credit Corporation" on Justia Law

This appeal grew out of overpayments that lessee, Safeway Stores 46, Inc., made to its lessor, WY Plaza, L.C. The lease allowed Safeway to deduct construction costs from the payments to WY Plaza. But Safeway neglected to make these deductions for twelve years before demanding repayment. WY Plaza rejected the demand based on Safeway’s delay. Safeway responded by paying under protest and suing for restitution and a declaratory judgment. Both parties sought summary judgment. In its own motion, WY Plaza denied the availability of restitution because the parties’ obligations had been set out in a written contract. The district court agreed with WY Plaza. But the court went further, deciding sua sponte that Safeway’s delay prevented recovery under the doctrine of laches. So the court granted summary judgment to WY Plaza and denied Safeway’s motion. The Tenth Circuit disagreed as to both trial court rulings. Despite the lack of any laches argument in its motion, the district court relied on laches to grant summary judgment to WY Plaza on the claim for declaratory relief. The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erroneously failed to notify Safeway before granting summary judgment to WY Plaza based on laches. Furthermore, the Tenth Circuit found that in granting WY Plaza’s motion for summary judgment, the district court relied on arguments that WY Plaza hadn’t raised. The district court also erroneously granted summary judgment to WY Plaza on the restitution claim: "The unilateral nature of Safeway’s mistake doesn’t prevent restitution." The Tenth Circuit held Safeway was entitled to summary judgment because WY Plaza failed to create a triable fact-issue, and Safeway was entitled to summary judgment on its claims for a declaratory judgment and restitution. View "Safeway Stores v. WY Plaza" on Justia Law