Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Bill Head, doing business as Bill Head Enterprises (Head), hired Petroleum Solutions, Inc. to manufacture and install an underground fuel system at the truck stop Head owned and operated. After a major diesel-fuel leak occurred, Respondents sued Petroleum Solutions for its damages. The trial rendered judgment in favor of Head and in favor of third-party defendant Titeflex, Inc., the alleged manufacturer of a component part incorporated into the fuel system, on Titeflex’s counterclaim against Petroleum Solutions for statutory indemnity. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the judgment as to Head, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the sanctions of charging the jury with a spoliation instruction and striking Petroleum Solutions’ statute-of-limitations defense, and the trial court’s abuse of discretion was harmful; and (2) affirmed the judgment as to Titeflex’s indemnity claim, holding that Titeflex was entitled to statutory indemnity from Petroleum Solutions. Remanded for further proceedings between Respondents and Petroleum Solutions. View "Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Head" on Justia Law

Jack Irwin owed a warehouse that Shade rented to store personal property. West Gate Bank held notes payable from Shade that were secured by Shade’s personal property. Shade later defaulted on the notes. Irwin and West Gate subsequently agreed to move Shade’s personal property pursuant to an “Abandonment” document. When Shade filed for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court approved distribution of the proceeds in Shade’s personal property to West Gate, concluding that the Abandonment document was not an assignment or release of West Gate’s perfected security interest. Thereafter, Irwin filed this action against West Bank in district court alleging that West Gate breached its obligations under the Abandonment document by failing to pay the proceeds to Irwin. The district curt entered judgment in favor of West Gate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s determination regarding the preclusive effect of the bankruptcy court’s ruling with respect to an assignment or release of West Gate’s security interest in Shade’s property was not relevant to this appeal; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the Abandonment document was not an enforceable contract or a warranty. View "Irwin v. West Gate Bank" on Justia Law

Appellee, which manufactures and distributes specialized products for use in the defense, security, and aerospace industries, entered into a consultant agreement with Appellant, under which Appellant agreed to identify buyers for Appellee’s products. Three years later, Appellee acquired the rights to manufacture and sell RH1280B field-programmable gate array (“FPGA”)s, which are semiconductor integrated circuits that are used in satellites and other space equipment. Operating under the terms of the consultant agreement, Appellant found customers for RH1280B FPGAs, accepted delivery of the PFGAs, and resold the goods to its customers. Before Appellant accepted delivery, however, Appellee warned it that the RH1280Bs failed to meet certain specifications. Appellant subsequently refused to pay an outstanding balance of $1,800,000, alleging that Appellee breached its express warranty regarding the performance characteristics of the RH1280B. Thereafter, Appellee terminated the consultant agreement. The district court granted summary judgment in Appellee’s favor. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in Appellee’s favor. View "BAE Sys. Info. & Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v. SpaceKey Components, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2004, Plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of medical devices, and Defendant, the developer and manufacturer of CoStar, a coronary stent, entered into an agreement designating Plaintiff as the exclusive distributor of CoStar for a worldwide market territory. In 2007, Defendant notified Plaintiff that it was recalling CoStar and removing it from the worldwide market. Plaintiff subsequently sued Defendant for breach of contract, seeking damages for lost profits related to its resale of the stents. Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the issue of damages, concluding that the lost profits sought by Plaintiff were consequential damages and subject to the agreement’s damages limitation provision. The court subsequently dismissed the complaint because, by denying Plaintiff lost profits as a remedy, the court effectively ended the lawsuit. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the agreement’s limitation on consequential damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under the parties’ exclusive distribution agreement, the lost profits constituted general damages, which fell outside the scope of the agreement’s limitation on recovery. View "Biotronik A.G. v. Conor Medsystems Ireland, Ltd." on Justia Law

Corning hired Hyundai, an ocean shipper, to transport thin glass sheets for use in televisions and computer monitors from the U.S. to Asia. Although it is not clear when the damage occurred, damage was noted when Hyundai unloaded the containers from flatcars operated by its subcontractors (Norfolk Southern Railway and BNSF, another rail carrier). Corning had no role in selecting and no relationship with the subcontractors. There were opinions that the damage was caused by movement of the railcars, not by packing, but the actual cause was not established. Corning’s insurer paid Corning $664,679.88 and filed suit. The district court held that the case would proceed solely under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 11706, apparently reasoning that the damage undisputedly occurred while the cargo was in the possession of a rail carrier. The court found that a Subcontracting Clause did not immunize the rail carriers from suit, but obligated Corning to indemnify Hyundai for any resultant claims by a subcontractor against Hyundai arising out of the same facts. The court held that a $500-per-package limit of liability did not apply to the rail carriers or Hyundai. After a jury trial, the court found Hyundai and the railroads liable, but denied prejudgment interest. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment against Hyundai, reversed and vacated judgments against the railroads, and remanded for reconsideration of prejudgment interest.View "CNA Ins. Co. v. Hyundai Merch. Marine Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

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