Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

For 20 years, the vendor (SDM) provided food services at Drexel University in Philadelphia. In 2014 the university announced that it would competitively bid the contract for on-campus dining. The same vendor ultimately won that competition but about two years into the contract’s 10-year duration, the vendor sued the university for fraud, multiple breaches of contract, and alternatively for unjust enrichment. The university responded with fraud and breach-of-contract counterclaims. Only a few of the vendor’s breach-of-contract claims and portions of the university’s breach-of-contract claim survived summary judgment. The parties referred the remaining claims and counterclaims to arbitration and jointly moved to dismiss them. The district court granted that motion and entered final judgment, which the parties appealed, primarily to dispute the summary judgment ruling.The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in Drexel’s favor on SDM’s unjust enrichment and punitive damages claims, summary judgment in SDM’s favor on Drexel’s fraudulent inducement claim, and the district court’s decision to deny Drexel’s motion to strike declarations by SDM witnesses under the sham affidavit rule. The court vacated an order granting summary judgment to Drexel on SDM’s claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract for failure to renegotiate in good faith, and breach of a supplemental agreement for the Fall 2016 Semester. The surviving claims were remanded to the district court. View "SodexoMAGIC LLC v. Drexel University" on Justia Law

Ken Rogers and Costas Pavlou entered into an agreement for Rogers to potentially purchase a concession stand from Pavlou. The concession business, costas Place, would operate at the Mississippi State Fair, The agreement required Rogers to pay Pavlou $35,000 “on or before October 25, 2009.” If that condition was satisfied, Pavlou would give Rogers the option to purchase Costas Place for an additional $35,000 payment “on or before two weeks after the last day of the Mississippi State Fair in the year 2011.” Rogers failed to pay the first $35,000 by the deadline; he first made a payment of $30,225 on November 23, 2009, which Pavlou accepted. Then, from 2009 to 2011, Pavlou paid Rogers an equal share of the net income from Costas Place per the agreement. Nevertheless, all that remained was for Rogers to provide the final $35,000 payment in 2011, but the deadline passed. Rogers contended Pavlou waived the 2011 deadline. Rogers claimed that during his divorce proceeding, Pavlou represented to Rogers that he would extend the deadline for the option to purchase the business until after the divorce proceedings ended. Pavlou countered that, pursuant to the contract, Rogers’s option to purchase the business lapsed when he failed to pay the remaining $35,000. Rogers sued Pavlou asserting breach of contract. Including his claims of waiver, Rogers insisted that Pavlou gave reassurances that he would accept that second installment of $35,000 after Rogers’s divorce was final. The case proceeded to trial, but, in the meantime, Pavlou died, and his estate was substituted as party-defendant. After discovery and litigation but before trial, Pavlou’s estate filed two pretrial motions, a motion to take judicial notice of prior testimony and a motion to exclude parol evidence. Pertinent here, the estate sought to introduce Rogers' testimony at his divorce proceeding; Pavlou’s counsel asked the trial judge to “take judicial notice that he testified [the joint venture agreement] was void, that he swore to the Chancery Court it was void.” On the motion to exclude parole evidence, Pavlou’s counsel argued the 2009 agreement “very specifically and expressly said that modifications had to be in writing, that there would be no verbal alterations to the contract.” The trial court granted Pavlou's motion for a directed verdict, finding Rogers failed to present competent proof that Pavlou waived the payment deadline. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "Rogers v. Estate of Pavlou" on Justia Law

BP retained the Responders (O’Brien’s and NRC) for nearly $2 billion to assist with the cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Thousands of the Responders' workers filed personal injury lawsuits against BP, which were consolidated and organized into “pleading bundles.” The B3 bundle included “all claims for personal injury and/or medical monitoring for exposure or other injury occurring after the explosion and fire of April 20, 2010.” In 2012, BP entered the “Medical Settlement” on the B3 claims with a defined settlement class. The opt-out deadline closed in October 2012. The Medical Settlement created a new type of claim for latent injuries, BackEnd Litigation Option (BELO) claims. After the settlement, plaintiffs could bring opt-out B3 claims if they did not participate in the settlement, and BELO claims if they were class members who alleged latent injuries and followed the approved process. Responders were aware of the settlement before the district court approved it but neither Responder had control over the negotiations, nor did either approve the settlement.In 2017, BP sought indemnification for 2,000 BELO claims by employees of the Responders. The Fifth Circuit held that BP was an additional insured up to the minimum amount required by its contract with O’Brien’s; the insurance policies maintained by O’Brien’s cannot be combined to satisfy the minimum amount. O’Brien’s is not required to indemnify BP because BP materially breached its indemnification provision with respect to the BELO claims. View "O'Brien's Response Management, L.L.C. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc." on Justia Law

Ngo purchased a BMW. The dealership financed Ngo’s purchase; the purchase agreement contained an arbitration clause. As a result of alleged defects with the car, Ngo sued BMW, the manufacturer, which was not a signatory to the purchase agreement. BMW moved to compel arbitration. The district court granted the motion, finding BMW to be a third-party beneficiary.The Ninth Circuit reversed. Under California law, a nonsignatory is a third-party beneficiary only to a contract made expressly for its benefit. Any benefit that BMW might receive from the clause was peripheral and indirect because it was predicated on the decisions of others to arbitrate. The purchase agreement was drafted with the primary "motivating purpose" of securing benefits for the contracting parties; third parties were not the purposeful beneficiaries of that undertaking. Nothing in the contract evinced any intention that the arbitration clause should apply to BMW. The parties easily could have indicated that the contract was intended to benefit BMW but did not do so. The court declined to apply equitable estoppel to compel arbitration. Ngo did not allege any “concerted misconduct.” BMW was mistaken that, under the Song-Beverley and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Acts, Ngo’s claims were inextricably intertwined with the terms of the purchase agreement. View "Ngo v. BMW of North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Robert, David, and Troy Taylor were partners in a commercial fire prevention business based in Alaska. Troy later formed his own business that directly competed with the partnership. In January 2015, Robert, David, and Troy signed an eight-paragraph agreement (“the Agreement”) that settled all potential legal claims relating to Troy’s competing business. The Agreement provided that Robert and David would buy Troy’s interest in the partnership. In exchange, Troy agreed to pay Robert and David $30,000 each and not work in the fire prevention industry in Alaska and Nevada. In March 2018, Robert and David brought this action in Idaho alleging, among other things, that Troy had breached the Agreement by working for a competing fire prevention business in Nevada. Troy counterclaimed, asserting Robert and David had breached the Agreement. Robert and David voluntarily dismissed some claims and the district court dismissed the rest. In addition, the district court granted summary judgment in Troy’s favor on his breach of contract counterclaim. Robert and David appealed, challenging the district court’s rulings that: (1) the noncompete provision in the Agreement was unenforceable; (2) the Agreement was severable and enforceable without the noncompete provision; and (3) they could not assert an affirmative defense of excusable nonperformance based on their allegation that Troy materially breached the Agreement. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court found the district court only erred in finding the noncompete clause was severable from the Agreement as a matter of law. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Taylor v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After Midwest failed to meet its sales quota for two or more consecutive quarters, Exactech terminated its Agency Agreement with Midwest. The Agreement contained a non-compete provision entitling Midwest to Restricted Period Compensation (RPC) after termination. Midwest filed suit seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment as to the amount of RPC.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not apply the plain and ordinary meaning of Paragraph 5.D.ii as required by Minnesota law. Furthermore, nothing in the remainder of the Agreement contradicts the plain meaning of Paragraph 5.D.ii. There is no claim of unilateral or mutual mistake and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Midwest Medical Solutions, LLC v. Exactech U.S., Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute over a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) formed between Valley Joist BD Holdings, LLC (“VJ Holdings”) and EBSCO, Industries Inc. (“EBSCO”). In December 2017, EBSCO sold all of its stock in Valley Joist, Inc. to VJ Holdings. After closing, VJ Holdings discovered structural defects in one of the buildings acquired as part of the transaction. In July 2018, VJ Holdings sought indemnification from EBSCO through the procedure outlined in the SPA. Two years after receiving no response to the notice, VJ Holdings filed suit in the Superior Court for breach of contract and fraud in the inducement. The Superior Court granted EBSCO’s motion to dismiss the fraud claim for failure to plead sufficient facts to satisfy Superior Court Civil Rule 9(b). The court also dismissed the breach of contract claim as barred under the SPA’s one-year contractual statute of limitations. VJ Holdings appealed: (1) challenging whether it pled sufficient facts to show pre-closing knowledge of fraud; and (2) challenged whether the Superior Court properly relied on a bootstrapping doctrine to dismiss the fraud claim. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, finding that the allegations in the complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, lead to a reasonable inference that EBSCO knew of the structural defects in the building at the time of closing the SPA, contrary to its representation in the SPA that the building was in good operating condition and repair. As for the bootstrapping argument, the Supreme Court determined the Superior Court did not rely on a bootstrapping doctrine to dismiss the fraud claim. View "Valley Joist BD Holdings, LLC v. EBSCO Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Uber’s wholly-owned Dutch subsidiaries retained Rattagan, an Argentinian attorney, to serve as their legal representative in Buenos Aires in connection with a new Uber subsidiary in Argentina. Uber representatives from San Francisco allegedly assumed responsibility for communicating with Rattagan. According to Rattagan, Uber launched its platform in Argentina before its subsidiary was registered with the proper tax authority, despite knowing that Rattagan, as the entities’ legal representative, could be subject to personal liability for Uber’s violations of Argentine law. Law enforcement authorities raided Rattagan’s office and the homes of his business colleagues; his offices were surrounded by protestors and he received negative press. Rattagan later was charged with aggravated tax evasion for his perceived involvement with the Uber launch.Rattagan sued for negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent concealment, and aiding and abetting fraudulent concealment. Applying California law, the district court dismissed, as time-barred, Rattagan’s negligence and breach of the implied covenant claims, and held that the fraudulent concealment claims were foreclosed by the economic loss rule, which prevents a party to a contract from recovering economic damages resulting from breach of contract under tort theories. The Ninth Circuit noted that Rattagan’s appeal hinges on whether fraudulent concealment claims are exempt from California’s economic loss rule and certified that question to the California Supreme Court. View "Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal presented an issue of first impression for the Court of Appeals: does a commercial property insurance policy provide coverage for a business’s lost income due to the COVID-19 pandemic? After review of the specific insurance policy that California Mutual Insurance Company (California Mutual) issued to The Inns by the Sea (Inns) for its five lodging facilities, the Court determined Inns could not recover from California Mutual for its lost business income resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, Inns did not identify any manner in which it could amend its complaint to state a claim for coverage. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining California Mutual’s demurrer without leave to amend. View "The Inns by the Sea v. Cal. Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

One beverage distributorship sued another and ultimately narrowed its lawsuit to a single tort claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage premised solely on the theory that the defendant had engaged in independently wrongful conduct by breaching a nondisclosure and non-circumvention agreement. This is an invalid theory as a matter of law under California Supreme Court precedent; an actor’s breach of contract, without more, is not “wrongful conduct” capable of supporting a tort, including the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. No one caught the error until the jury returned a special verdict in the plaintiff’s favor that was premised solely on the breach of the agreement.The court of appeal reversed. A jury’s special verdict for the plaintiff, based on conduct that does not constitute an actionable tort, cannot stand. Just as a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enter judgment for conduct that does not violate a criminal or civil statute, a trial court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enter judgment for allegedly tortious conduct, fashioned by common law, that the state’s highest court has determined is not tortious. A party’s conduct cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a court, so the defendant’s delay in objecting is irrelevant. View "Drink Tank Ventures LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd." on Justia Law