Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a seller seeking damages from a buyer that breached contracts to purchase goods, argued at trial that it was entitled to recover its market price damages. The trial court determined that plaintiff was entitled to the lesser of its market price damages or its resale price damages, and the court ultimately awarded plaintiff its resale price damages. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, because the it determined that plaintiff could recover its market price damages, even though it had resold some of the goods at issue. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court agreed that plaintiff was entitled to recover its market price damages, even if those damages exceeded plaintiff's resale price damages. View "Peace River Seed Co-Op v. Proseeds Marketing" on Justia Law

Williams Alaska Petroleum owned and operated a refinery, which ConocoPhillips Alaska supplied with crude oil. ConocoPhillips demanded that Williams tender a payment of $31 million as adequate assurances of Williams’s ability to perform if an ongoing administrative rate-making process resulted in a large retroactive increase in payments that Williams would owe ConocoPhillips under the Exchange Agreement. ConocoPhillips offered to credit Williams with a certain rate of interest on that principal payment against a future retroactive invoice. Williams transferred the principal of $31 million but demanded, among other terms, credit corresponding to a higher rate of interest. Williams stated that acceptance and retention of the funds would constitute acceptance of all of its terms. ConocoPhillips received and retained the funds, rejecting only one particular term in Williams’s latest offer but remaining silent as to which rate of interest would apply. Years later, after the conclusion of the regulatory process, ConocoPhillips invoiced Williams retroactively pursuant to their agreement. ConocoPhillips credited Williams for the $31 million principal already paid as well as $5 million in interest calculated using the lower of the two interest rates. Williams sued ConocoPhillips, arguing that a contract had been formed for the higher rate of interest and that it was therefore owed a credit for $10 million in interest on the $31 million principal. The superior court initially ruled for Williams, concluding that a contract for the higher rate of interest had formed under the Uniform Commercial Code when ConocoPhillips retained the $31 million while rejecting one offered term but voiced no objection to Williams’s specified interest term. On reconsideration, the superior court again ruled for Williams, this time determining that a contract for the higher rate of interest had formed based on the behavior of the parties after negotiation under the UCC, or, in the alternative, that Williams was entitled to a credit for a different, third rate of interest in quantum meruit. The superior court also ruled in favor of Williams on all issues related to attorney’s fees and court costs. ConocoPhillips and Williams both appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court was right the first time and that the parties entered into a contract for the higher rate of interest under the UCC. View "ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc." on Justia Law

The Halims own named WR Property Management. The company’s predecessor had contracted to buy natural gas from CES for the Halims’s 41 Chicago-area rental properties. CES delivered, but the company stopped paying and owed about $1.2 million when CES cut off service and filed suit. An Illinois court awarded $1.7 million, including interest and attorney fees. The company did not pay; the Halims had transferred all of its assets to WR. CES filed a diversity suit under the Illinois Fraudulent Transfer Act. The district court granted CES summary judgment and entered a final judgment for $2.7 million on fraudulent‐conveyance and successor‐liability claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating: “If the Halims are wise, they will start heeding the adage: if you’re in a hole, stop digging.” View "Centerpoint Energy Servs., Inc. v. WR Prop. Mgmt., LLC" on Justia Law

Crewzers was awarded blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) with the Forest Service to provide buses that transport fire crews to wildfires and other disaster areas in regional and national wilderness zones and to provide flame retardant tents to disaster areas. Both BPAs established dispatch priority lists within geographic zones. When an emergency arose, the Service would to submit an order for the highest-ranked (lowest-priced) resource available on the priority. BPAs are frameworks for future contracts and state that “If a Contractor cannot be reached or is not able to meet the time and date needed, the dispatcher may proceed with contacting the next resource on the dispatch priority list.” The Service has discretion to deviate from priority lists as needed and did not make any guarantee that it would actually place orders under the BPAs. The BPAs required Crewzers to accept orders only if “willing and able.” The Service terminated the Crewzers BPA for buses after Crewzers allegedly responded with unauthorized vehicles and attempted to bill at a higher-than-authorized rate and later terminated its BPA for tents after Crewzers allegedly provided tents that did not meet specifications or failed to deliver on time. Crewzers sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to damages or to reinstatement of the BPAs. The Claims Court dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the BPAs were not binding contracts for purposes of invoking Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. 1491(a)) jurisdiction. View "Crewzers Fire Crew Transp., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Contractors Cargo, engaged in heavy-haul operations, commissioned Empire Bucket to fabricate a steel deck to be used with Cargo’s specialized rail freight car for transporting oversized loads. A third party designed the deck, specifying that the deck be fabricated from T-1 high-strength steel and that welding be performed to American Welding Society specifications. The deck was designed to transport up to 800,000 pounds. Empire fabricated the deck, which passed inspection by an outside agency and all nondestructive tests, and delivered it. Cargo connected the deck to its railcar and loaded it to 820,000 pounds. The next morning, an employee observed that the deck had dropped about three inches. Cargo attempted to raise it with a hydraulic jacking system, but the deck fractured. Cargo hired a metallurgical engineer, who determined that a portion of the weld was composed of material with properties different from the properties of the material in the rest of the weld where the crack originated. Cargo refused to pay the full purchase price. Empire sued and Cargo filed counterclaims. The district court granted Empire’s motion in limine to exclude testimony concerning one test performed on the deck after it failed. The jury returned a verdict for Empire. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that, given testimony admitted at trial, the excluded evidence would have added little to the implied warranty claims. View "Empire Bucket, Inc. v. Contractors Cargo Co." on Justia Law

Immunosciences developed and sold medical tests and testing materials. In 2007, NeuroSciences wanted to expand its offerings. Immunosciences and NeuroScience decided to collaborate, but the relationship fell apart within two years. Immunosciences sued. In the first trial, a jury rejected a claim that NeuroScience did not pay what it had contracted to pay for medical testing materials, but the district judge ordered a new trial, concluding that the verdict was undermined by flawed special verdict questions. The jury in the second trial found for Immunosciences but awarded much less money than it was seeking. NeuroScience appealed, claiming that the court’s grant of a new trial was an abuse of discretion. Immunosciences argued that the court abused its discretion by allowing NeuroScience to argue in the new trial that the parties had orally modified their written contract and that NeuroScience breached a separate confidentiality agreement by continuing to use Immunosciences’ testing methods after the parties ended their business relationship. The jury in the first trial had awarded nearly $1.2 million on that claim, but the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for NeuroScience, explaining that Immunosciences had relied on an impermissible damages theory. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Vojdani v. Pharmasan Labs, Inc." on Justia Law

Apex, a manufacturer of electronics, and Sears entered into an agreement in 2003. In 2004, Sears implemented a program to create a return reserve on Apex’s account. The return reserve was an internal accounting mechanism used to place a negative dollar deduction on Apex’s account; Sears would hold back payment to Apex until the amount showing owed by Sears exceeded the amount of the reserve. In 2009 Apex filed suit, alleging that Sears breached the contract by refusing to pay $8,185,302 owed for goods delivered. The district court granted Sears summary judgment, finding that the action was barred by the four-year statute of limitations in Section 2–725 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Apex was on notice that Sears was not going to pay the deductions after each invoice and even marked these “wrongful” deductions in its own Invoice Report. For more than four years, Apex sat on its right to sue. View "Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co." on Justia Law

In 2005, James Wiese attended an auction held by Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC (APA) and purchased a "Yerf Dog Go-Cart," for his two minor sons. The go-cart was on consignment to APA from FF Acquisition; however, Wiese was not aware that FF Acquisition had manufactured the go-cart. Soon after purchasing the go-cart, Wiese discovered that the engine would not operate for more than a few minutes at a time. After several failed attempts to repair the go-cart, Wiese stored the go-cart in his garage for almost two years. In 2007, Wiese repaired the go-cart. Matthew Wiese was riding the go-cart and had an accident in which he hit his head on the ground causing a brain injury that resulted in his death in 2010. The elder Wiese brought contract claims against APA stemming from his purchase of the go-cart and for his son's death. APA appealed the circuit court's denial of its motion for summary judgment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that based on the common-law principles of agency, an auctioneer selling consigned goods on behalf of an undisclosed principal may be held liable as a merchant-seller for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under 7-2-314, Ala. Code 1975. As a result,the Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment denying APA's summary-judgment motion as to Wiese's breach-of-the-implied-warranty-of-merchantability claim. View "Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC v. Wiese" on Justia Law

Sasafrasnet, an authorized distributor of BP products, provided Joseph with notice of its intent to terminate his franchise based on three occasions when Sasafrasnet attempted to debit Joseph’s bank account to pay for fuel deliveries but payment was denied for insufficient funds. The district court denied Joseph a preliminary injunction, finding that Joseph failed to meet his burden for a preliminary injunction under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act 15 U.S.C. 2805(b)(2)(A)(ii). After a remand, the district court found that two of Joseph’s NSFs should count as “failures” under the PMPA justifying termination, at least for purposes of showing that he was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Joseph’s bank account was not adequately funded for the debit on two occasions because Joseph had decided to change banks, circumstances entirely within Joseph’s control. Given Joseph’s history of making late payments in substantial amounts because of insufficient funds (each was more than $22,000), the delinquent payments were not “technical” or “unimportant.” View "Joseph v. Sasafrasnet, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court centered on whether Lincoln Farm, L. L. C. breached a contract to sell potatoes to Farming Technology Corporation, and whether certain provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code involving the unavailability of a carrier and a commercially impracticable method of delivery were applicable to the parties. Farming Technology argued at trial that Lincoln Farm was required to build a private rail spur in order to fulfill Lincoln Farm's contractual obligation to load potatoes on railcars or trucks furnished by Farming Technology Corporation to take delivery of the potatoes. After review of the contract in question, the Supreme Court held that the contract unambiguously stated that Farming Technology Corporation would furnish railcars or trucks to take delivery of the potatoes, and that the contract did not state that Farming Technology had the right to insist on delivery solely by rail, or to insist that Lincoln Farm build a private rail spur. View "Lincoln Farm, LLC v. Oppliger" on Justia Law