Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether Washington State courts have jurisdiction over a civil case arising out of a contract in which the tribal corporation waived its sovereign immunity and consented to jurisdiction in Washington State courts. The Washington Supreme Court held that it did not infringe on the sovereignty of the tribe to honor its own corporation's decision to enter into a contract providing for jurisdiction in Washington State courts. View "Outsource Servs. Mgmt. v. Nooksack Bus. Corp." on Justia Law

The respondents, two developers and an architectural firm, Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. (S&W), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Columbia as part of a larger project team to develop a publicly-funded hotel for the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. The City eventually abandoned its plan under the MOU, and the respondents brought suit on several causes of action including breach of contract and equitable relief. The City moved for summary judgment arguing the MOU was not a contract and therefore the contract claims failed. The circuit court agreed and, rejecting the equitable claims as well, granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The respondents appealed and the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court reversed. Because the MOU was comprised of agreements to execute further agreements, there was no meeting of the minds on numerous material terms which had not yet been defined. Accordingly, the court of appeals was reversed with respect to that portion of the court's judgment; the Supreme Court held the MOU was unenforceable as a matter of law. The Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court and reinstated its judgment in favor of the City. View "Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. v. City of Columbia" on Justia Law

In April 2003, the City of Columbia entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. (S&W) and several other parties, to develop a publicly-funded hotel adjacent to the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. As architect, S&W was to complete sufficient preliminary design work to determine a guaranteed maximum price for the project, which would be used by the City to obtain municipal bond funding to cover the cost of the hotel. Pursuant to the MOU, the construction company was to pay S&W directly. On June 26, 2003, the City received a letter stating S&W would complete its preliminary design on July 10, 2003, and would then stop working until the bond financing for the hotel was finalized. Realizing this could delay the start of construction, S&W offered to continue working the remaining ninety days until the anticipated bond closing date of October 13, 2003, but required assurance it would be compensated for the work it performed during this time frame. It provided an estimate requiring $650,000 and $75,000 per week after that. On July 30, the City approved "$650,000 for interim architectural design services for a period of 90 days prior to bond closing." The bond closing did not occur as scheduled, but S&W nevertheless continued to work. S&W submitted an invoice to the City for $697,084.79 for work that took place from July 10 to December 15, 2003. By letter dated December 17, 2003, S&W informed the construction company that the City had voted that day "to advance [$705,000.000] to the design team for design services and expenses. Because under the MOU the construction company was to pay S&W, not the City, the construction company agreed to reimburse the City for the funds paid to S&W after the bond closing. The City paid S&W's invoice. S&W continued to work on the project, but in March 2004, the City abandoned its plans under the MOU and ended its relationship with S&W. S&W received no further compensation and sued the City for breach of contract under the MOU and the July 2003 agreement. The City argued there was no separate agreement and the payment of interim fees was merely an advance on fees under the MOU and furthermore, the MOU provided that S&W was to be paid by the construction company, not the City. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of S&W, finding a contract existed between it and the City. On certiorari, the City conceded a contract exists, but argued the contract terms have been satisfied. The Supreme Court found the City's arguments were unpreserved and affirmed as modified. View "Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. v. City of Columbia" on Justia Law

Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. sued Edgetech I.G.,Inc., n/k/a Quanex I.G. Systems, Inc.; Quanex Building Products Corporation; Thompson I.G., LLC, and RDM Consulting, LLC; and Wynne Enterprises, Inc. Edgetech filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion. Edgetech then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that the Supreme Court direct the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to dismiss and to enter an order granting the motion and dismissing the case against it. Finding that the trial court erred in denying Edgetech's motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court granted Edgetech's petition and issued the writ. View "Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. v. Thompson I.G., LLC et al. " on Justia Law

In this case and its companion, LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC,(No. 88132-4), the central issues on appeal arose from a joint venture agreement regarding a debt collection business. The debt collection business operated according to the terms of the joint venture agreement, as originally proposed, from approximately winter 2005 through summer 2007. In this opinion, the issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of equitable indemnification (known as the "ABC Rule") to hold that the legal malpractice plaintiffs here suffered no compensable damages as a matter of law and that summary judgment dismissal was appropriate. "Where the only damages claimed by a legal malpractice plaintiff are attorney fees incurred in a separate litigation and the only legal basis on which plaintiff asserts those fees are compensable is the ABC Rule, then the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissal if the ABC Rule does not apply to the undisputed facts as a matter of law." That was the situation presented in this case, and as such, affirmed the trial court. View "LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC" on Justia Law

In this case and its companion, LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC, (No. 88846-9) (Wash. July 31, 2014), the central issues on appeal arose from a joint venture agreement regarding a debt collection business. The debt collection business operated according to the terms of the joint venture agreement, as originally proposed, from approximately winter 2005 through summer 2007. This opinion addressed whether the trial court proceedings complied with due process requirements; whether, as a matter of law, the joint venture proposal was entered by an attorney in violation of one or both of former RPCs 1.7 (1995) and 1.8(a) (2000); and, if so, whether the remedy imposed by the trial court and affirmed on appeal is appropriate. The Supreme Court found: (1) the trial court proceedings satisfied the requirements of procedural due process; (2) though on different reasoning from that used by the Court of Appeals, that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that the joint venture proposal contemplated a business transaction subject to, agreed to, and entered into in violation of former RPC 1.8(a). The Court affirmed that the former RPC 1.8(a) violation rendered the terms of the business transaction unenforceable under the circumstances presented and the remedy imposed was appropriate. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the business transaction was entered in violation of former RPC 1. 7. The Court declined to determine whether the former RPC 1.7 violation would have also justified the remedy imposed. View "LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Lightlab Imaging, Inc., filed this action against Defendants, a competitor of Lightlab’s and a supplier, alleging, among other causes of action, breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information. The trial of this action was conducted in multiple phases. The jury returned a verdict in favor of LightLab on issues of liability. At the damages phase, the parties stipulated that LightLab was entitled to nonlost profits damages in the amount of $200,000. Lastly, the trial judge awarded LightLab permanent injunctive relief for trade secrets the jury found had been misappropriated but denied permanent injunctive relief for protection against future appropriation of Lightlab’s trade secrets. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed but ordered the inclusion of the declaration sought by LightLab, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding opinion testimony from LightLab’s expert economist on the question of certain future lost profits; (2) the trial judge did not err in declining to issue permanent injunctions to protect Lightlab’s trade secrets; and (3) Lightlab was entitled to a declaration of its contract rights that mirrored the language of the order for summary judgment concerning contract formation.View "Lightlab Imaging, Inc. v. Axsun Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

SFG, a Texas firm specializing in distressed‐asset investing, bought a loan portfolio from McFarland State Bank for $1.27 million (28.8% of the face value of the debt). Materials provided by McFarland’s agent indicated that the portfolio was secured by 19 real estate properties in Wisconsin. Both parties were well represented during negotiations. The Sale Agreement provided limited remedies in the event of a breach and disclaimed all other remedies. Soon after purchasing the portfolio, SFG learned that three of the 19 collateral properties that supposedly secured the loans had been released before the sale. SFG contacted McFarland; McFarland disputed liability. Months later, SFG sued, seeking damages beyond the remedies provided in the contract. Applying the contractual remedies limitation, a formula that resulted in zero recovery under the circumstances, the district court granted judgment for McFarland. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, courts hold sophisticated parties to the terms of their bargain. View "S. Fin. Grp. LLC v. McFarland State Bank" on Justia Law

VICI, a sports car racing team, sought T-Mobile’s sponsorship for the 2009-2011 Le Mans racing seasons. The companies entered into an agreement that required VICI to field one T-Mobile-sponsored racecar during the 2009 season and two during each of the 2010 and 2011 seasons and required VICI to display T- Mobile’s logo. The agreement provides that “VICI grants to [T-Mobile] the right to be the exclusive wireless carrier supplying wireless connectivity for the Porsche, Audi and VW telematics programs.” The Agreement had a force majeure clause, a severability clause, and a “Limitation of Liabilities.” VICI worked with T-Mobile to secure telematics business from VW, Audi, and Porsche. In July 2009, T-Mobile’s sponsored racecar sustained damage from an accident and was not able to race while undergoing repairs. On January 5, 2010, VICI sent a notice of default, indicating that T-Mobile had failed to pay $7 million due under the agreement. On January 7, T-Mobile sent a letter terminating the Agreement, stating that VICI made a material representation that VICI had authority to bind Audi, VW and that VICI failed, without justification or notice, to race at a key event where T-Mobile hosted business guests. The district court awarded VICI $7 million in damages. The Third Circuit affirmed the award of $7, but vacated with regard to VICI’s damages resulting from T- Mobile’s failure to make the 2011 payment. On remand, the court should consider an award of attorney’s fees to VICI in light of its reassessment of the 2011 damages issue. View "VICI Racing LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc." on Justia Law

In October 2004, Cellport Systems, Inc. and Peiker Acustic GMBH & Co. KG entered into an agreement concerning Cellport’s technology for the hands-free use of cellphones in cars. In 2009, Cellport filed suit against Peiker, alleging breach of that agreement and sought royalties for seven Peiker products. The district court awarded Cellport royalties on only two of the products, interpreting an acknowledgment in the license agreement as "a rebuttable presumption." Cellport appealed, and Peiker filed a conditional cross-appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Court found that section 1.17(i) of the License Agreement created a category of products on which royalties are due regardless of whether any of Cellport’s patents were infringed; Peiker owed Cellport royalties on those products. On remand, the district court was directed to calculate the damages due Cellport for those two products. Because the district court only briefly addressed the relationship between the "BTPSC" and the "'456 Patent" the Tenth Circuit remanded to allow the district court to determine whether additional royalties were owed to Cellport. With respect to Peiker's cross-appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Cellport that the issue was not ready for appellate review and further held that it was not ripe for review by the district court. View "Cellport Systems v. Peiker Acustic" on Justia Law