Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Edward and Linda Diaz purchased a motorhome from a California dealer, receiving warranties from the manufacturer that included a clause requiring any legal disputes related to the warranties to be litigated exclusively in Indiana, where the motorhome was manufactured. The warranties also contained a choice-of-law provision favoring Indiana law and a waiver of jury trial. After experiencing issues with the vehicle that were not remedied under warranty, the Diazes sued the manufacturer, dealer, and lender in California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging failure to repair defects and refusal to replace or refund the vehicle.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants’ motion to stay the California action, enforcing the forum selection clause. The manufacturer had offered to stipulate that it would not oppose application of California’s Song-Beverly Act or a jury trial if the Diazes pursued their claims in Indiana. The court ordered the manufacturer to sign such a stipulation, holding that the Diazes could seek to lift the stay if Indiana courts declined to apply California law.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, concluded that the forum selection clause was unenforceable. The court held that the warranty’s terms, including the forum selection and choice-of-law provisions, violated California public policy by purporting to waive unwaivable statutory rights under the Song-Beverly Act. The court determined that the manufacturer’s post hoc offer to stipulate to California law did not cure the unconscionability present at contract formation and that severance of the unlawful terms would not further the interests of justice. As a result, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order staying the California action and directed entry of a new order denying the stay. View "Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals each purchased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle that included a subscription-based system called “mbrace,” which provided various features through a 3G wireless network. When newer cellular technology rendered the 3G-dependent system obsolete, both customers asked their dealerships to replace the outdated system at no charge, but their requests were denied. Subsequently, they filed a class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz Group AG, asserting claims including breach of warranty under federal and state law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, considered Mercedes’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, based on the arbitration provision within the mbrace Terms of Service. The district court found in favor of Mercedes, concluding that the plaintiffs were bound by an agreement to arbitrate their claims. Since neither party requested a stay, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they had not agreed to arbitrate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Applying Illinois contract law, the appellate court determined that Mercedes had provided sufficient notice of the arbitration agreement to the plaintiffs through the subscription activation process and follow-up communications. The court found that Mercedes established a rebuttable presumption of notice, which the plaintiffs failed to overcome, as they only stated they did not recall receiving such notice, rather than expressly denying it. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had assented to the agreement by subscribing to the service and thus were bound by the arbitration provision. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jim Rose v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Two students enrolled at a private university in California during early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread campus closures. In accordance with local lockdown orders, the university transitioned from in-person to online instruction in March 2020. Prior to the Fall 2020 semester, the university communicated with students about its intention to return to in-person education but made clear that such plans depended on approval from local authorities. Ultimately, the university continued remote instruction. The students remained enrolled and later graduated.The students filed suit in the Superior Court of Orange County, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices. They argued that the university had made an enforceable promise to provide in-person education, citing various university publications, course listings, policies, and statements about on-campus experiences. They sought a partial tuition refund and raised alternative claims regarding unfair or unlawful representations. The university moved for summary judgment, asserting that it had not made any specific promise to provide in-person instruction and that its statements reflected only general expectations. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the university, relying on Berlanga v. University of San Francisco and finding no triable issue of material fact regarding any misrepresentation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The court held that the university’s statements and practices did not constitute sufficiently specific enforceable promises of in-person education under California law. The court found that only specific, explicit promises are enforceable in the student-university relationship, and none were present here. The court also rejected the students’ unjust enrichment and unfair business practices claims. The judgment in favor of the university was affirmed, and the university was awarded costs on appeal. View "Grant v. Chapman University" on Justia Law

An individual seeking to refinance his mortgage visited a website that offers mortgage information and referrals to affiliated lenders. During three separate visits, he entered personal information and clicked buttons labeled “Calculate” or “Calculate your FREE results.” Immediately below these buttons, the website displayed language in small font stating that clicking would constitute consent to the site’s Terms of Use, which included a mandatory arbitration provision and permission to be contacted by the site or affiliates. The Terms of Use were accessible via a hyperlinked phrase. After using the site, the individual was matched with a particular lender but did not pursue refinancing. Later, he received multiple unwanted calls from the lender and filed a class-action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging violations such as calling numbers on the Do Not Call registry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially dismissed the complaint on the merits and denied the lender’s motion to compel arbitration as moot. Upon realizing the arbitration issue should have been decided first, the court reopened the case but found no enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed, denying the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied reconsideration and allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint. The lender appealed the denial of arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo. It held that, under California law, the website provided reasonably conspicuous notice that clicking the buttons would signify assent to the Terms of Use, including arbitration. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct objectively manifested acceptance of the offer, forming a binding arbitration agreement. The court also concluded that the agreement was not invalid due to unspecified procedural details and that questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

Taylor L. Wood, her husband, and her son received medical care from physicians employed by Intermountain Emergency Physicians, PLLC (IEP). The resulting medical debt was assigned to Medical Recovery Services, LLC (MRS) for collection. After Wood’s attorneys alleged violations of state law, the Woods and IEP entered into a settlement that discharged the debt and provided payment to the Woods. Nevertheless, MRS later sued Wood to collect the same debt. Wood responded by counterclaiming and bringing IEP into the case as a third-party defendant, relying on the settlement agreement. MRS dismissed its complaint upon learning of the prior settlement, and all claims were eventually dismissed by the court.After judgment was entered, both sides sought a determination of the prevailing party and an award of attorney fees. The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Bingham County, found that Wood was the prevailing party over MRS and ordered MRS to pay Wood’s costs and attorney fees, concluding that MRS’s complaint was frivolous due to lack of proper investigation and communication regarding the settlement. MRS and IEP filed a first motion for reconsideration of the fees order, which was denied. They then filed a second motion for reconsideration, also denied, and subsequently appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s order awarding costs and attorney fees to Wood because MRS and IEP’s notice of appeal from that order was untimely under Idaho Appellate Rule 14(a). The court did have jurisdiction to review the denial of the second motion for reconsideration, but because MRS and IEP failed to provide argument or authority on that issue, they waived it. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the second motion for reconsideration. View "Medical Recovery Services, LLC v. Wood" on Justia Law

Daevieon Towns purchased a new Hyundai Elantra in 2016, and over the next 19 months, the car required multiple repairs for alleged electrical and engine defects. In March 2018, either Towns or his wife, Lashona Johnson, requested that Hyundai buy back the defective vehicle. Before Hyundai acted, the car was involved in a collision, declared a total loss, and Johnson’s insurance paid her $14,710.91.Towns initially sued Hyundai Motor America in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As trial approached, Towns amended his complaint to add Johnson as a plaintiff, arguing she was the primary driver and responsible for the vehicle. The trial court allowed the amendment, finding Johnson was not a buyer but permitted her to proceed based on its interpretation of Patel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. At trial, the jury found for Towns and Johnson, awarding damages and civil penalties. However, the court reduced the damages by the insurance payout and adjusted the prejudgment interest accordingly. Both parties challenged the judgment and costs in post-trial motions.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that only a buyer has standing under the Act, so Johnson could not be a plaintiff. The court also held that third-party insurance payments do not reduce statutory damages under the Act, following the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC. Furthermore, prejudgment interest is available under Civil Code section 3288 because Hyundai’s statutory obligations do not arise from contract. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to enter a modified judgment and reconsider costs. View "Towns v. Hyundai Motor America" on Justia Law

A veteran and his spouse obtained a VA-guaranteed loan to purchase a home. After the veteran’s employment was disrupted due to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the couple experienced financial hardship and defaulted on their mortgage. The lender, a bank, initiated foreclosure proceedings. The couple attempted to reinstate their mortgage by tendering the full amount to bring the loan current, as provided by the mortgage contract, but allege that the bank and its foreclosure law firm failed to accept their payment or provide a means for payment. The property was sold to third-party purchasers at a foreclosure sale for more than the outstanding loan balance. The couple claims they did not receive adequate notice or an opportunity to exercise their statutory right of redemption.The third-party purchasers filed an ejectment action in Madison Circuit Court. The couple defended against the action and brought counterclaims against both the purchasers and the bank, alleging breach of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, and seeking declaratory relief. The trial court dismissed all claims against the bank and the third-party purchasers and granted summary judgment on the ejectment. The couple amended their pleadings, but the trial court again dismissed all claims. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama. During the appeal, they settled with the third-party purchasers, leaving only their claims against the bank.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that Alabama law does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and affirmed dismissal of that claim. However, the Court found that the couple adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract (due to the bank’s alleged refusal to allow reinstatement), wrongful foreclosure, and unjust enrichment. The Court reversed dismissal of those claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Laborde v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A commercial landlord leased property in downtown Boston to a restaurant operator. As part of their lease agreement, the landlord sold the restaurant a liquor license for one dollar, with the understanding that the license would be transferred back to the landlord for one dollar at the end of the lease. The lease included a provision prohibiting the restaurant from pledging the liquor license as collateral for any loan without the landlord’s written consent. Despite this, before the lease ended, the restaurant pledged the license to its principal as collateral for a loan. When the landlord discovered this, it terminated the lease and demanded the return of the license.The landlord and its related entities filed suit in the Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging breach of contract, unfair or deceptive business practices under General Laws c. 93A, and conversion. The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for the landlord on the contract claims, finding the anti-pledge provision enforceable and the pledge a default. After a bench trial, the court found for the landlord on the c. 93A and conversion claims, awarding treble damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The defendants appealed these decisions.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the anti-pledge provision did not violate public policy or state law and was therefore enforceable. The court affirmed that the principal’s conduct in falsely affirming to regulatory authorities that the pledge did not violate any agreements constituted willful and knowing unfair or deceptive conduct under c. 93A. However, while the court affirmed the breach of contract claim, it reversed the conversion judgment, finding that the landlord did not have actual or immediate right to possession of the license at the relevant time. The award of attorney's fees and costs was affirmed. View "Nicosia v. Burns, LLC" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a university in Nebraska instituted a policy requiring all students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline, with the only exemptions allowed for medical reasons or until a vaccine received full FDA approval. Religious exemptions were not permitted. Students who failed to comply were unenrolled and barred from campus, and some had holds placed on their accounts, preventing access to transcripts. One student complied with the mandate but suffered adverse effects and was medically exempted from further doses. Another student withdrew voluntarily before the deadline.After the university enforced the mandate, several students sought injunctive relief in the District Court for Douglas County to prevent their unenrollment, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court denied relief, finding that any contract included the Emergency Use Authorization waiver agreements and that the students breached the contract by not being vaccinated after FDA approval. An initial appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Supreme Court for lack of a final, appealable order. The students then consolidated their actions and filed an operative complaint alleging breach of implied contract, denial of due process, conversion, negligence, and violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and found that the students plausibly alleged claims for breach of an implied contract and conversion, based on the university’s unilateral modification of conditions mid-semester and the withholding of transcripts. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence and NCPA claims, finding them preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, and held that the due process claim was abandoned on appeal. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract and conversion claims. View "Ramaekers v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute that arose after a company, Motiva Performance Engineering, failed to deliver on an agreement to upgrade a vehicle for the plaintiff, resulting in a jury verdict against Motiva for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of the Unfair Practices Act. The company’s managing member, who was also its attorney, transferred Motiva’s Ferrari to another company he controlled shortly after the verdict and subsequently used the car as collateral for a loan without disclosing this to the court. Additional questionable conduct included failing to disclose or potentially backdating a promissory note and depositing insurance proceeds into his personal account. These acts occurred while the court was overseeing asset proceedings to satisfy the judgment against Motiva.Following these actions, the district court held a hearing and issued a sanctions order against the managing member and his associated entities for what it termed remedial contempt, requiring payment of the underlying judgment and a $50,000 donation to charity. The sanctions order also referenced Rule 1-011 NMRA (Rule 11) violations due to misstatements in court filings. The managing member moved for reconsideration, arguing the evidence did not support remedial contempt, but appealed the order before the motion was decided. The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions on both inherent powers and Rule 11 grounds, though a dissent questioned the breadth of conduct relied upon under Rule 11.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that the district court erred by imposing punitive contempt sanctions without affording criminal-level due process protections and that such sanctions could not be justified under the court’s inherent powers without those protections. However, the court upheld the sanctions under Rule 11, as the due process requirements for Rule 11 are not equivalent to those for contempt. The holding was limited to willful misstatements made in documents filed with the court. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Butler v. Motiva Performance Engineering, LLC" on Justia Law