Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Whites were dealers of Kinkade’s artwork. The parties agreed to arbitrate disputes in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. In 2002, they commenced arbitration in which Kinkade claimed that the Whites had not paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the Whites counterclaimed that they had been fraudulently induced to enter the agreements. Kinkade chose Ansell as its arbitrator; the Whites chose Morganroth. Together Ansell and Morganroth chose Kowalsky as the neutral who would chair the panel. The arbitration dragged on; in 2006, Kinkade discovered that the Whites’ counsel, Ejbeh, had surreptitiously sent a live feed of the hearing to a hotel room. Ejbeh’s replacement departed after being convicted of tax fraud. The Whites did not comply with discovery requests, but after closing arguments and over objections, the panel requested that the Whites supply additional briefs. The Whites and their associates then began showering Kowalsky’s law firm with business. Kinkade objected, to no avail. A series of arbitration irregularities followed, all favoring the Whites. Kowalsky entered a $1.4 million award in the Whites’ favor. The district court vacated the award on grounds of Kowalsky’s “evident partiality.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Thomas Kinkade Co. v. White" on Justia Law

Klein-Becker USA and Klein-Becker IP Holdings sued Patrick Englert and Mr. Finest, Inc., for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act; false advertising under the Utah Truth in Advertising Act; unfair competition under the Utah Unfair Practices Act; fraud; civil conspiracy; and intentional interference with existing and prospective business relations. The action arose from Englert's unauthorized selling of "StriVectin" skin care products: he posed as a General Nutrition Center (GNC) store to purchase the products at below wholesale rates. Englert then sold the products through eBay and other commercial web platforms, including his own, "mrfinest.com." Englert was sanctioned several times for failing to comply with court orders and discovery schedules. The third and final sanction resulted in the entry of default judgment for Klein-Becker on all remaining claims. Englert appealed the district court's entry of default judgment against him, determination of his personal liability and the amount of damages owed, grant of a permanent injunction, denial of a jury trial, and refusal to allow him to call a certain witness. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no fault in the district court's analysis or judgment and affirmed. View "Klein-Becker USA v. Englert" on Justia Law

In 1999 the Sellers conveyed businesses to CT Acquisition Corp. The price was to be paid over time. The Sellers insisted on a surety bond (put up by Frontier Insurance) and personal guarantees by the principals of CT Acquisition. The Guarantors also promised to indemnify Frontier and promised to post collateral on Frontier’s demand. CT Acquisition did not pay, the Guarantors failed to keep their promise, and the Sellers turned to Frontier, which did not pay because it was in financial distress. Frontier demanded that the Guarantors post collateral. The district court read the agreement to require collateral only after Frontier’s obligation to the Sellers had been satisfied, or at least quantified. The suit was dismissed as unripe. Meanwhile the Sellers had sued Frontier and obtained judgment of $1.5 million. Frontier then filed another suit against the Guarantors. The district court concluded that, Frontier’s obligation having been quantified, the Guarantors must post collateral and, following remand, ordered the Guarantors to deposit with the Clerk $1,559,256.78, The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting the Guarantors’ argument that they need not post collateral until Frontier has paid the Sellers. View "Frontier Ins. Co. v. Hitchcock" on Justia Law

Construction Company contracted with Subcontractor for construction of elements of an HVAC system. As partial collateral for a revolving line of credit, Subcontractor assigned to Bank its right to receive payment under the contract with Construction Company. Construction Company instead made twelve payments to Subcontractor. Subcontractor subsequently ceased business operations, leaving an outstanding debt to Bank on its line of credit. Bank filed an action against Construction Company for breach of contract and violation of the UCC. A jury found (1) Construction Company liable on both counts for ten of the twelve checks that it had delivered to Subcontractor, and (2) Bank was estopped from recovering with respect to the final two checks. The judge entered judgment on the statutory claim in the amount of $3,015,000, the full face value of the ten checks. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial judge (1) properly entered judgment on Bank's statutory claim in the amount of the wrongfully midirected payments; but (2) erred in denying the bank's motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to the final two checks, as there was insufficient evidence to support Construction Company's defense of estoppel. View "Reading Coop. Bank v. Constr. Co." on Justia Law

Gladys Garner and Randolph Scott defaulted on their respective automobile loan agreements. Both contracts were governed by the provisions of the Creditor Grantor Closed End Credit Act of the Commercial Law Article (CLEC). The contracts were later assigned to Ally Financial, Inc., Nuvell National Auto Finance, and Nuvell Financial Services (collectively, GMAC). GMAC repossessed both vehicles and informed the debtors that the vehicles would be sold at a "public auction." Both cars were later sold. The debtors filed separate complaints against GMAC alleging, in part, that GMAC violated the CLEC because the sales of their cars were in reality "private sales," requiring GMAC to provide a detailed post-sale disclosure to them under the CLEC, which GMAC had not done. The federal district court combined the cases and granted summary judgment for GMAC, concluding the sales were "public auctions" because they were both widely advertised and open to the public for competitive bidding. The federal appellate court then certified an issue for clarification to the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Court answered that the auctions were in reality "private sales" because attendance was limited to those who paid a refundable $1,000 cash deposit. View "Gardner v. Ally Fin., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1996 Beloit agreed to build high-speed paper-making machines for Indonesian paper companies. Two of the companies executed promissory notes in favor of Beloit reflecting a principal indebtedness of $43.8 million. The paper companies guaranteed the notes; Beloit assigned them to JPMorgan in exchange for construction financing. The machines were delivered in 1998 but did not run as specified. In 2000 the parties settled claims pertaining to the machines but preserved obligations under the notes. JPMorgan sued for nonpayment. The district court held that warranty-based claims were foreclosed by the settlement and that other defenses lacked merit; it awarded JPMorgan $53 million. After the appeal was filed, JPMorgan issued citations to discover assets. Although the companies raised an international conflict-of-law question, the district court ordered compliance with the citations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The settlement waived implied warranty defenses and counterclaims. The fraud defense is also mostly barred; to the extent it is not, the evidence was insufficient to survive summary judgment. The court also rejected defenses that the notes lacked consideration; that the notes were issued for a “special purpose” and were not intended to be repaid; and that JPMorgan is not a holder in due course. The discovery order was not appealable. View "JPMorgan Chase & Co., N.A. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Glassman is a car dealer in Southfield, Michigan and an authorized Kia dealer, under an Agreement that states that Glassman’s rights are not exclusive. Glassman agreed to assume certain responsibilities in its Area of Primary Responsibility, an area undefined in the Agreement, but agreed “that it has no right or interest in any [Area of Primary Responsibility] that [Kia] may designate” and that “[a]s permitted by applicable law, [Kia] may add new dealers to … the [Area of Primary Responsibility].” Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act grants car dealers certain limited territorial rights, even when the dealer has a nonexclusive franchise, and requires manufacturers to provide notice to an existing dealer before establishing a new dealer within a certain distance of the existing dealer’s location. Receipt of notice gives the existing dealer a cause of action to challenge the proposed new dealer. Kia and Glassman entered into their Agreement in 1998, when the distance for notice was 6 miles. A 2010 amendment increased the distance to 9 miles. The district court found that the parties did not agree to comply with the 2010 Amendment and that the 2010 Amendment is not retroactive. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the 6-mile distance applies. View "Kia Motors Am., Inc. v. Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc." on Justia Law

Shipper engaged Common Carrier to transport computer equipment belonging to Company. Company claimed the shipment was damaged on arrival, and Common Carrier refused to pay the amount that Company claimed Common Carrier had agreed to settle the claim for. Company asserted a claim against Shipper, whose Insurer paid Company. As subrogee, Insurer sued Common Carrier for breach of the settlement agreement. Insurer avoided removal to federal court by not asserting a cargo-damage claim, but, on remand, amended its petition to assert one. Common Carrier contended the cargo-damage claim was barred by limitations because Insurer filed it more than four years after Common Carrier rejected Company's claim. Insurer argued the cargo-damage claim related back to its original action for breach of the settlement agreement and thus was timely filed. The trial court agreed and rendered judgment against Common Carrier. The court of appeals held the cargo-damage claim did not relate back and was therefore barred by limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Insurer, holding that Insurer's cargo-damage claim was not barred by limitations, as the cargo-damage claim and breach-of-settlement claim both arose out of the same occurrence and, therefore, the relation-back doctrine applied. View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Daybreak Express, Inc." on Justia Law

OCV supplies equipment and licenses software for in-room hotel entertainment and sought a judgment of $641,959.54 against Roti, the owner of companies (Markwell, now defunct) that owned hotels to which OCV provided services. The district judge granted summary judgment, piercing the corporate veil, but rejecting a fraud claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed. While the Markwell companies were under-funded, OCV failed to treat the companies as separate businesses and proceed accordingly in the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the companies and made no effort to determine the solvency of the companies. View "On Command Video Corp. v. Roti" on Justia Law

Respondents brought an action against Appellants, alleging breach of contract and fraud- and tort-based claims based on their purchase of two furniture stores from Appellants. The district court entered judgment for Respondents. The court allowed Respondents to rescind the agreement and awarded them damages. Although they appealed the judgment, Appellants did not obtain a stay of execution. Thus, despite the pending appeal, Respondents obtained a writ of execution on the judgment, allowing them to execute against one appellant's personal property. Respondents subsequently purchased Appellants' rights and interests in the district court action. Respondents moved to substitute as real parties in interest and dismiss the appeal on the basis that they acquired Appellants' claims and defenses at the sheriff's sale. The Supreme Court denied Respondents' motion, holding that Nevada's judgment execution statutes do not include the right to execute on a party's defenses to an action, as permitting a judgment creditor to execute on a judgment in such a way would cut of a debtor's defenses in a manner inconsistent with due process principles. View "Butwinick v. Hepner" on Justia Law