Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Benihana America obtained a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration of a dispute arising under its license agreement with Benihana of Tokyo, prohibiting Tokyo from: selling unauthorized food items at the restaurant it operates under the license agreement; using certain trademarks in connection with that restaurant in a manner not approved by the license agreement; and arguing to the arbitral panel, if it rules that Tokyo breached the license agreement, that Tokyo should be given additional time to cure any defaults. The Second Circuit affirmed with respect to the menu offering and trademark use injunctions. The court reasonably concluded that each of the relevant factors favored Benihana America. The court reversed the prohibition on arguing to the arbitral panel for an extended cure period. When a dispute is properly before an arbitrator, a court should not interfere with the arbitral process on the ground that, in its view of the merits, a particular remedy would not be warranted. Benihana America may challenge an arbitrator’s decision in court only after it has been issued. It may not subvert its agreement to arbitrate by obtaining an advance judicial determination that there are no grounds for the arbitrator to grant a particular remedy. View "Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC" on Justia Law

United operates a nationwide household goods moving network with more than 400 independently owned and operated agents. Since 1993, Chavis has been a full-service United agent. The parties' relationship is governed by a 2007 Agency Agreement. Chavis filed suit for breach of contract, alleging that United breached the Agency Agreement by unilaterally changing the roles that United agents play in servicing shipments by not assigning Chavis to certain roles in the chain of interstate shipments. According to Chavis, it should have been assigned the roles of origin agent and destination agent, based on its status as the "local" or "authorized" agent in the case of non-military shipments, i.e., its status as the agent closest to the original or destination address, and based on its designation as the United agent "authorized" to service Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina for military shipments. The district court entered summary judgment for United, finding the Agreement unambiguous. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. None of the documents that Chavis identified supported its argument that it is the only "authorized" agent for its home market for non-military shipments or the exclusive agent for military shipments to and from Shaw AFB. View "Chavis Van & Storage of Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. United Van Lines, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review arose from a business merger. Appellant, Lazard Technology Partners, LLC, represents former stockholders of Cyveillance, Inc. (the seller). Appellee Qinetiq North America Operations, LLC paid $40 million up-front money to the company and promised to pay up to another $40 million if the company's revenues reached a certain level. When the earn-out period ended, the revenues had not reached the level required to generate an earn-out. The seller filed suit in the Court of Chancery, arguing that the buyer breached the merger agreement. The seller also argued that the buyer violated the merger agreement‟s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to take certain actions that the seller contended would have resulted in the achievement of revenue sufficient to generate an earn-out. After review, the Court of Chancery found that the seller had not proven that any business decision of the buyer was motivated by a desire to avoid an earn-out payment. Further, the Court found that the merger agreement's express terms were supplemented by an implied covenant. But as to whether conduct not prohibited under the contract was precluded because it might result in a reduced or no earn-out payment, the Court of Chancery held that, consistent with the language of implicated section of the merger agreement, the buyer had a duty to refrain from that conduct only if it was taken with the intent to reduce or avoid an earn-out altogether. On appeal, the seller argued the Court of Chancery misinterpreted the merger agreement. Finding no misinterpretation, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lazard Technology Partners v. Qinetiq North America Operations LLC" on Justia Law

Luitpold is a New York corporation that develops and markets drugs and medical devices, including dental implant products. Geistlich, a Swiss corporation that develops and manufactures dental products, now owns the patents and trademarks for the Bio-Oss and Bio-Glide dental products, which are used to aid bone and tissue growth in patients following dental procedures. In 1994,, following failed attempts to market its products in the United States through other companies, Geistlich and Luitpold entered into interdependent commercial and license agreements to establish a distribution relationship for the sale of Geistlich’s dental products throughout the United States and Canada. The parties later entered into additional agreements and amendments. In 2010, Geistlich declared its intent to terminate the distribution relationship, without compensation to Luitpold, as of 2011. Geistlich did not allege breach of the agreements, but declared that the agreements had been in effect for a “reasonable” time and that under New York law, Geistlich could unilaterally terminate them upon reasonable notice. Luitpold sought declaratory relief, specific performance, damages, and prejudgment attachment of Geistlich patents and trademarks. The district court rejected all claims. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that material issues of fact precluded dismissal or summary judgment on certain claims. View "Luitpold Pharm., Inc. v. Ed. Geistlich Sohne A.G." on Justia Law

The owner of Mamilove, LLC, and its officers, sisters Michele and Lorraine Reymond sought rescission of a franchise agreement and damages for claims related to their negotiations for, and ultimate purchase of, a daycare franchise. The named defendants were the franchisor, Legacy Academy, Inc., and its officers, Frank and Melissa Turner (collectively “Legacy”). Ten years after they signed the franchise agreement at the heart of this dispute, the Reymonds alleged Legacy fraudulently induced them to sign the agreement by providing false information about the historical earnings of existing Legacy Academy franchisees. They sought to rescind the franchise agreement and recover damages for claims based on alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). After a jury trial, the trial court denied Legacy's motion for a directed verdict as to all of the Reymonds' claims. The jury found in the Reymonds' favor, and awarded $750,000 in damages plus attorney fees. Legacy appealed, raising various challenges, including a challenge to the trial court's ruling on its motion for directed verdict. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in denying Legacy's motion for a directed verdict as to fraud, negligent misrepresentation and a violation of the RICO statute. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals who affirmed the trial court with regard to these claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Legacy Academy, Inc. v. Mamilove, LLC" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from a contract signed by the parties in 2006, the Wireless Patent License Agreement, which provided for arbitration as the mechanism to resolve any claims arising under that Agreement. LG Electronics, Inc. sought a declaration in the Court of Chancery that InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing Inc. that InterDigital had breached a nondisclosure agreement between the parties by disclosing confidential information during a pending arbitration proceeding. The Court of Chancery granted InterDigital's motion to dismiss, holding that all of LG's claims were properly before the arbitral tribunal, and deferred to the "first-filed proceeding" based on the factors established by the Delaware Supreme Court in "McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Co." After review, the Supreme Court agreed that the McWane doctrine applied in this case, and that it supported dismissing LG's claims. View "LG Electronics, Inc. v. InterDigital Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Robl and Homoly formed the Company to develop real estate. Robl held a 60% share and Homoly held 40%. Steve Robl was the tax matters partner; his wife, accountant Vera Robl, assisted with financial records; Homoly was a project manager. From 2006-2011, the Company operated at a loss. Robl periodically advanced money. The operating agreement required the consent of both members before “creation of any obligation or commitment of the Company, including the borrowing of funds, in excess of $10,000; [and] . . . . Any act which would cause a Member, absent such Member’s written consent, to become personally liable for any debt or obligation of the Company.” Vera notified Homoly that the Company needed “to make a capital call or increase loans on existing inventory,” that Robl had “put in $71,500 so if you go the route of capital call, your share to get caught up would be $47,666.” Homoly responded, “I would prefer the money from Robl to be considered a loan ... If Steve would rather me put in a capital call, however, I will … write the check.” In 2011, Robl sued for breach of contract, seeking $172,617.61. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that Homoly did not personally guarantee any loan. The Eighth Circuit reversed. The record showed that the parties genuinely dispute whether Homoly authorized Robl’s loan and personally guaranteed repayment. View "Robl Constr., Inc. v. Homoly" on Justia Law

Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC operated a Hampton Inn hotel in Siloam Springs, Arkansas. It purchased a general liability insurance policy from Century Surety Company covering the Hampton Inn for the period of November 13, 2012, through November 13, 2013. Siloam Springs purchased the Commercial Lines Policy through Century Surety's agent, RCI Insurance Group of Claremore, Oklahoma. On January 21, 2013, several guests at the Hampton Inn suffered bodily injury due to a sudden, accidental leak of carbon monoxide from the heating element of an indoor swimming pool. Siloam Springs sought coverage under the Commercial Lines Policy. Century Surety denied coverage, relying on an exclusion set out in the Commercial Lines Policy. That provision (the "Indoor Air Exclusion") excluded from coverage "[b]odily injury' . . . arising out of, caused by, or alleging to be contributed to in any way by any toxic, hazardous, noxious, irritating, pathogenic or allergen qualities or characteristics of indoor air regardless of cause." After Century Surety removed the case to federal court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In its motion, Century Surety asserted that because the insurance contract was to be performed in Arkansas, Oklahoma choice-of-law rules made Arkansas law applicable. It further argued that the Indoor Air Exclusion unambiguously excluded coverage for the carbon-monoxide based injuries to the guests at the Hampton Inn. For its part, Siloam Springs "decline[d] to contest" Century Surety's assertion that Arkansas law applied because, it asserted, "Arkansas law does not differ from Oklahoma law in any way material to [the] coverage dispute." As to the merits, Siloam Springs asserted the Indoor Air Exclusion was ambiguous and, as such, had to be construed in favor of coverage. Without definitively resolving whether Oklahoma or Arkansas law applied, but relying on precedent from Arkansas, the district court granted summary judgment to Century Surety. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review called for the Court to determine the citizenship, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, of a limited liability company ("LLC"). Because the materials before the Court did not demonstrate that complete diversity of citizenship existed at the time of the filing of the complaint, the matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Siloam Springs Hotel v. Century Surety Co." on Justia Law

Service Oil, Inc., appealed and Rory Gjestvang, Brad Bjerke and LaRayne Haakenson cross-appealed a judgment entered after a bench trial dismissing the parties' claims involving their business relationship. Steven Lenthe was the sole owner of Service Oil, which operated convenience stores in North Dakota, and defendants Gjestvang, Bjerke, Haakenson and Don Stetson were employees of Service Oil. Gjestvang started working for Service Oil in 1985, serving as operations manager from 1992 until April 2010. Bjerke was supervisor of eastern North Dakota stores from 1997 until 2010. Haakenson was district supervisor and manager of the Bismarck travel center from 1993 until May 2010. This lawsuit stemmed from a transaction involving the purchase of repossessed wholesale inventory, initially located in a warehouse in Bismarck, and an agreement for the sale of that inventory through Service Oil. In March 2007, American Bank Center in Bismarck contacted Haakenson about purchasing a large volume of repossessed inventory. Gjestvang and Haakenson discussed the matter with Lenthe, and he agreed to provide $700,000 to purchase the inventory. In April 2007, Lenthe, Gjestvang, Haakenson and Bjerke executed a Warehouse Business Agreement to sell the inventory. At about the same time of the agreement, Service Oil finalized the purchase agreement and lease with American Bank Center, resulting in Service Oil purchasing the inventory in Bismarck for its newly established "Merchandise Depot" division for $700,000. In May 2009 Service Oil moved the warehouse operation and remaining inventory to Fargo. In early 2009, Gjestvang created a separate entity called "Prairie Distributing" and, on May 1, 2009, rented a building for its warehouse business. In May 2009, defendants Les Laidlaw and Rodney Demers started an entity under the trade name "Laidlaw Sales." Laidlaw and Demers also were sales representatives of Prairie Distributing. Gjestvang purchased merchandise for Prairie Distributing and used the services of Demers and Laidlaw to sell products to Service Oil, which was done without informing Service Oil. Service Oil sued Gjestvang, Bjerke, Haakenson, Stetson, Demers and Laidlaw. Service Oil alleged the defendants conspired to deceive Service Oil and sought a refund of commission overpayments from Gjestvang, Bjerke and Haakenson. Service Oil also asserted a claim against Gjestvang for conversion of certain brand-name gloves, asserting the gloves were Service Oil's property and were retrieved from Prairie Distributing's garbage. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court's underlying findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and the court did not err in dismissing all the parties' claims. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Service Oil, Inc. v. Gjestvang" on Justia Law

Ryan Air entered into a contractual agreement to sublease an airport lot in Kotzebue. The agreement gave Ryan Air an option to purchase the leasehold and apply its rent payments to the final purchase price. But when Ryan Air attempted to complete the purchase, Bruce Andrew Baker d/b/a Baker Leasing, LLC, the other party to the contract, disputed the outstanding balance and sent Ryan Air a notice of breach. Both parties brought their claims to the superior court. After a trial, the court concluded that Ryan Air did not materially breach the contract and ordered the parties to proceed with the transfer. Baker appealed the order, arguing that the court’s factual findings regarding his breach claims were erroneous, that the conveyance documents contained warranties beyond those he was contractually obligated to provide, and that Ryan Air’s attorney’s fees award was unreasonable. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, that the warranties contained in the conveyance documents did not exceed Baker’s contractual requirements, and that Ryan Air’s attorney’s fees were reasonable. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court’s judgment in most respects. However, the parties agreed that the superior court double-counted some of Ryan Air’s rent payments. The case was remanded to allow the superior court to address that issue. View "Baker v. Ryan Air, Inc." on Justia Law