Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case involves a 2009 loan transaction between TNE Limited Partnership (TNE) and the Muir Second Family Limited Partnership (the Muir Partnership) at a time when the Muir Partnership was dissolved. The plaintiffs, including the Muir Partnership, Dorothy Jeanne Muir, and Wittingham, LLC, sought to void the transaction. After a seven-day bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the transaction void and denying their request for attorney fees.TNE appealed, arguing that the transaction was voidable, not void, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of attorney fees. The Utah Supreme Court, in Wittingham III, agreed with TNE that the transaction was voidable and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the transaction bound the dissolved Muir Partnership and whether TNE was entitled to legal or equitable remedies. The court also instructed the district court to reconsider the attorney fees issue if plaintiffs renewed it on remand.On remand, the district court concluded that Nick Muir, who executed the transaction on behalf of the Muir Partnership, lacked both actual and apparent authority to bind the Partnership. The court also found that the plaintiffs were injured by the transaction and could void it. However, the court again denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees, interpreting the trust deed's fee provision as not applicable to the plaintiffs' action to invalidate the transaction. TNE's subsequent rule 60(b) motion, arguing that new authority from the Utah Supreme Court changed the controlling law on apparent authority, was denied.The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings. It held that TNE failed to show any manifestation of the Muir Partnership’s consent to Nick’s authority, either direct or indirect. The court also found that the district court did not err in allowing the Muir Partnership to void the transaction and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees under the trust deed. View "Wittingham v. TNE Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between D&M Roofing and Siding, Inc. (D&M), a roofing company, and Distribution, Inc., the owner of a warehouse. D&M had entered into a contract with Distribution to repair hail damage to the roof of Distribution's warehouse. However, Distribution later decided to use a different contractor for the repairs. D&M sued Distribution for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, claiming damages based on a cancellation fee provision in the contract. The district court found that the contract was enforceable and that Distribution had breached it. However, it also found that D&M was not entitled to any damages because it had not performed any work under the contract.The district court's decision was based on D&M's admission that its breach of contract damages were limited to those under the cancellation fee provision in the contract. The court found that under the clear and unambiguous language of the provision, D&M was only entitled to a cancellation fee of 20 percent of the "work done" by D&M. Since D&M had not performed any work, it was not entitled to the cancellation fee. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Distribution on D&M's unjust enrichment claim, explaining that an enforceable contract displaces such a claim.D&M later filed a second motion for summary judgment, this time alleging lost profits as the measure of damages for the breach of contract claim. The district court construed the motion as a motion to reconsider. The court explained that even though its prior order did not use the word "dismissed," it had disposed of the whole merits of the case and left nothing for the court's further consideration. The court denied D&M's motion and granted a cross-motion by Distribution for summary judgment. D&M appealed, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the court had not yet issued a final order or rendered a judgment. View "D& M Roofing & Siding v. Distribution, Inc." on Justia Law

International Development Solutions, LLC (IDS), a security service contractor, entered into a contract with the Department of State for the provision of personal protection services in Afghanistan. IDS was initially a joint venture between ACADEMI Training Center, Inc. (ATCI) and Kaseman, LLC. However, ATCI later purchased all of Kaseman, LLC’s membership interest in IDS, making IDS a sole member LLC with ATCI as the sole member and owner. IDS then sold and transferred all of its interests in all of its contracts, subcontracts, and all property and assets to ATCI. ATCI requested the State to recognize it as the successor-in-interest to IDS’s contract through a formal novation agreement, but the State denied the request.The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals denied IDS’s consolidated appeal seeking cost-reimbursement of tax payments made by related corporate entities. The Board found no entitlement to reimbursement as IDS did not present evidence that tax amounts paid were costs incurred by IDS, the contractor, rather than by entities higher in IDS’s ownership chain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that IDS did not present evidence that tax amounts paid were costs incurred by IDS, the contractor, rather than by entities higher in IDS’s ownership chain. Therefore, IDS was not entitled to reimbursement. View "INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC v. SECRETARY OF STATE " on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Zimmer Biomet, a medical-device manufacturer, and six of its former sales distributors. The dispute arose from a compensation agreement that guaranteed the distributors a lifetime of long-term commissions on all sales made within their distributorship after retirement. As the company grew and acquired competitors, a disagreement emerged over which product categories fell within the distributorship and were thus subject to the long-term commission agreement.The district court found the agreement ambiguous and sent the case to trial. The jury returned a split verdict, finding that Biomet owed long-term commissions on some products but not others. Biomet appealed the denials of its motions for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law, and the distributors cross-appealed the dismissal of two counts of their complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court agreed that the distributorship agreement was ambiguous regarding the specific categories of products it covered. It also found that the trial record supported the jury’s verdict in favor of the distributors on their Indiana breach-of-contract claim. The court rejected Biomet's argument that the agreement unambiguously limited long-term commissions to reconstructive products, finding that the agreement did not provide clear guidance on which product categories were covered. The court also upheld the dismissal of two counts in the distributors’ complaint, finding that they either lacked a contractual basis or were duplicative of another count. View "Hess v. Biomet, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves a contractual dispute between Alabama Plating Technology, LLC (APT) and Georgia Plating Technology, LLC (GPT), DVEST, LLC, and Jin Kim. The dispute arose from an asset-purchase agreement for a brake-plating plant. After the purchase, APT claimed indemnity from the sellers for environmental issues, unpaid accounts payable, and certain inoperable assets, alleging these were retained liabilities or breaches of warranties by the sellers. The sellers sued APT for breach of contract due to setoff of losses against annual installment payments.The trial court found in favor of APT regarding the environmental issues and unpaid accounts payable, but sided with the sellers on the inoperable-assets claim. It also rejected APT's claim for attorneys' fees and legal expenses. Both parties appealed.The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's judgment denying APT relief on its inoperable-assets claim and its claim for attorneys' fees and legal expenses. It affirmed the trial court's judgment granting APT relief on its environmental-issues and unpaid-accounts-payable claims, and the denial of the sellers' request to accelerate the remaining installment payments owed to them by APT. View "Alabama Plating Technology, LLC v. Georgia Plating Technology, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Jennifer Sugg, a student who was dismissed from her Certified Registered Nurse Anesthesiology (CRNA) program at Midwestern University after failing several required courses. Sugg sued Midwestern University and EmergencHealth (EH), alleging breach of contract and fraud. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all causes of action, and Sugg appealed.Sugg enrolled in Midwestern's CRNA program in 2016. She failed a course in her first semester and was placed on academic leave. After retaking the course and receiving a passing grade, she was placed on academic probation due to her low GPA. Sugg later failed her first clinical rotation course and was dismissed from the program. She appealed the decision, and the dismissal was overturned so she could retake the course. However, after failing another course, she was dismissed again. Sugg appealed this decision as well, but it was upheld by the university's Promotion and Graduation Committee and the Dean of the College of Health Sciences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Midwestern University did not breach the contract as it followed its guidelines and dismissed Sugg based on her academic performance. The court also found that Sugg failed to show that the university's decision was a substantial departure from accepted academic norms. Regarding the claims against EH, the court found that EH did not interfere with Sugg's contract with Midwestern University and did not make any false or misleading statements. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Sugg v. Midwestern University" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between MAK Technology Holdings Inc. (plaintiff) and Anyvision Interactive Technologies Ltd. (defendant). The defendant, an Israeli company selling facial-recognition software, engaged the plaintiff in 2017 to arrange introductions with potential customers in exchange for referral payments based on revenues generated from any resulting product-license agreements. The parties formalized their agreement in a written Referral Agreement with a defined "Effective Date" of November 23, 2017, and a term of three years. The agreement was amended twice in 2018 to include a compensation arrangement for equity investments in the defendant, separate from their arrangement with respect to product licenses.The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit to recover compensation allegedly owed under the amended Referral Agreement, claiming that a nonparty made an investment in the defendant in July 2021 for which the plaintiff is owed a $1.25 million fee under the Second Amendment. The defendant moved to dismiss this claim on the ground that the transaction occurred eight months after the Term of the Referral Agreement expired in November 2020. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed, both concluding that the error-infected language in section 2 of the Second Amendment creates an ambiguity with respect to the length of the Term.The Court of Appeals of New York disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a $1.25 million fee for a transaction consummated eight months after the "Term" of the parties' agreement expired. The court found that minor syntactic and spelling errors in the preamble of an amendment to the contract cannot reasonably be read as modifying the length of the Term. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the amendment is a separate agreement with a distinct term. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the Appellate Division, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the first cause of action for breach of contract to the extent based on the July 2021 transaction, and answered the certified question in the negative. View "MAK Tech. Holdings Inc. v Anyvision Interactive Tech. Ltd." on Justia Law

The case involves PB Legacy, Inc., a Texas-based shrimp breeding company, and American Mariculture, Inc., a Florida-based company that operated a shrimp breeding facility. PB Legacy had a contract with American Mariculture to breed shrimp. However, PB Legacy failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, including removing its shrimp from the facility on time. When American Mariculture threatened to harvest the abandoned shrimp, PB Legacy sued in state court. After a failed attempt to resolve the dispute, American Mariculture used the shrimp to launch a competing company, American Penaeid, Inc. PB Legacy then sued American Mariculture, Penaeid, and their CEO, Robin Pearl, in federal court, alleging conversion, defamation, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. During the trial, the district judge had to leave before the jury returned its verdict. The parties agreed to have a magistrate judge receive the verdict. However, the magistrate judge also responded to several jury questions and rejected a request for clarification about the verdict. The jury awarded $4.95 million in damages to PB Legacy on each of their federal and state trade secret claims. Post-trial motions were filed and denied.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The defendants argued that the magistrate judge lacked authority to preside over the last three days of trial because the parties did not consent to the magistrate judge’s exercise of Article III authority. The court agreed, stating that while the parties had consented to the magistrate judge receiving the verdict, they had not consented to the magistrate judge performing non-ministerial duties such as responding to jury questions and rejecting a request for clarification about the verdict. The court vacated the judgment, remanded for a new trial, and dismissed the cross-appeal as moot. View "TB Foods USA, LLC v. American Mariculture, Inc." on Justia Law

Kevin Erikson, an employee of Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC, left his job to work for a competitor, J.R. Simplot Company. Erikson had signed an employment agreement with Wilbur-Ellis in 2015, which included a non-competition and non-solicitation provision, preventing him from working with or soliciting from Wilbur-Ellis's customers or employees within a 100-mile radius of McCook County for two years after his employment was terminated. The agreement was set to terminate on March 31, 2019. Nearly four years after the termination of the agreement, Erikson resigned from Wilbur-Ellis and began working for Simplot, a competitor located in the restricted region.Wilbur-Ellis filed a lawsuit against Erikson, arguing that he had breached the agreement by violating the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions. The district court granted Wilbur-Ellis's motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that Wilbur-Ellis was likely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim against Erikson. The court concluded that the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions survived the termination of the agreement and remained enforceable against Erikson at the time of his resignation in 2023.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Erikson argued that the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions were not enforceable against him because the agreement terminated on March 31, 2019, and the provisions did not survive the termination date. The appellate court agreed with Erikson, stating that the provisions did not contain express language sufficient to extend their application beyond the agreement's termination date. Therefore, the provisions expired at the same time as the agreement. The court reversed the district court's decision and vacated the preliminary injunction. View "Wilbur-Ellis Company v. Erikson" on Justia Law

The case involves NGL Energy Partners LP and NGL Energy Holdings LLC (collectively, "NGL") and LCT Capital, LLC ("LCT"). NGL, entities in the energy sector, engaged LCT, a financial advisory services provider, for services related to NGL's 2014 acquisition of TransMontaigne Inc. However, the parties failed to agree on payment terms, leading LCT to file a lawsuit in 2015. The Superior Court held a jury trial in July 2018, which resulted in a $36 million verdict in LCT's favor.NGL appealed the Superior Court's decision, challenging the $36 million final judgment and a set of evidentiary rulings. LCT cross-appealed, contesting the Superior Court's methodology for computing post-judgment interest. NGL argued that the Superior Court erred by admitting evidence and arguments about the value/benefit supposedly gained by NGL in the Transaction, asserting that such evidence is prejudicial and irrelevant to a quantum meruit claim. NGL also argued that the Superior Court erred by admitting evidence of benefit-of-the-bargain or expectancy damages when assessing the quantum meruit value of LCT’s services.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court’s evidentiary rulings and rejected NGL's contention that the Superior Court incorrectly allowed LCT to recover benefit-of-the bargain/expectancy damages. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Superior Court’s post-judgment interest determination. The Supreme Court held that prejudgment interest is part of the judgment upon which post-judgment interest accrues under Section 2301(a). Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court as to this issue and remanded the case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion. View "NGL Energy Partners LP v. LCT Capital, LLC" on Justia Law