Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A manufacturer of specialized products for road construction and a supplier had a longstanding business relationship, with the supplier relying heavily on the manufacturer’s goods for government paving projects. In 2021, the manufacturer faced supply chain disruptions and increased material costs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to missed deliveries and eventually an ultimatum: the supplier must accept significant price increases on existing contracts or the business relationship would end. The supplier rejected the increases, deemed the manufacturer in breach, and procured substitute products from other vendors at prevailing market rates, which were significantly higher than the manufacturer’s proposed increased prices.The Iowa District Court for Cedar County held a bench trial, finding that contracts existed and were breached by the manufacturer when it refused to honor the original prices. The court awarded damages to both parties for breaches but offset the sums, ultimately finding the supplier’s cover purchases reasonable under the circumstances. Both parties appealed. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s findings regarding contract formation, breach, and damages, including the reasonableness of the supplier’s cover purchases, but remanded for correction of prejudgment interest calculations.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed only the question of whether the supplier’s procurement of substitute goods constituted reasonable “cover” under Iowa Code section 554.2712, given the manufacturer’s post-breach offer to fill the orders at a higher price. The court held that a buyer is not obligated to accept a breaching seller’s new terms to mitigate damages and that “cover” does not require dealing with the breaching seller. Substantial evidence supported the lower court’s finding that the supplier’s cover purchases were reasonable, even though they cost more than the manufacturer’s increased prices. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in relevant part, except regarding double prejudgment interest, which was remanded for correction. View "CMT Highway, LLC v. Logan Contractors Supply, Inc." on Justia Law

A married couple entered into a premarital agreement prior to their 2015 wedding. The agreement stated that each party’s property, including business interests owned prior to or acquired during the marriage, would remain separate and nonmarital. It also included a provision anticipating that the husband would purchase a condominium, which would become the marital home and, in the event of divorce, its value would be split equally. During the marriage, the couple resided in the condominium, but it remained owned by the husband’s mother, and the husband never purchased it. The couple separated in 2020, and the husband filed for divorce in 2021. Throughout the marriage, the husband acquired and managed various business interests, while both parties maintained separate finances.The Maine District Court in Portland held several hearings to resolve issues related to spousal support, discovery sanctions, and the interpretation and validity of the premarital agreement. The parties stipulated that the agreement was valid but disputed its scope, particularly regarding business interests and the condominium provision. The District Court found that the wife had waived any claim to the husband’s business interests and any increase in their value, and that the agreement did not require the husband to purchase the condominium. The court also determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the wife’s breach-of-contract claim regarding the condominium and awarded her a portion of her requested attorney fees.Upon appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the District Court’s judgment in part. It held that the wife had clearly waived any claim to the husband’s business interests and their increases in value. However, the Supreme Judicial Court determined that the lower court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the breach-of-contract claim concerning the condominium and in interpreting the agreement as not requiring its purchase. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Hutchinson v. Gomez" on Justia Law

A California company repurposed decommissioned military bunkers in South Dakota as survival shelters, offering them for sale or long-term lease. In 2020, an individual entered into a 99-year lease with the company for one of these bunkers, paying $35,000 upfront. The lease agreement incorporated a set of community rules, which the company reserved the right to modify with 30 days’ written notice. In 2021, the company amended the rules to expressly prohibit the brandishing of firearms except in designated areas. In 2023, the lessee was alleged to have brandished a firearm during an altercation, prompting the company to issue notices to vacate and, ultimately, to file a forcible entry and detainer action when the lessee secured the bunker but refused to return possession.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Fall River County granted summary judgment in favor of the lessee. The court reasoned that the lease was illusory because the company could unilaterally modify the rules at any time, leaving the lessee with no recourse. The court concluded that this rendered the entire lease void and unenforceable, thereby preventing the company from evicting the lessee under the lease.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment order. The Supreme Court held that the lease agreement was supported by valid consideration and was not illusory merely because the company retained the right to modify community rules, as such modifications were constrained by requirements of reasonableness and good faith. The Court ruled that the ability to modify rules, when exercised subject to notice and implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, does not make the underlying contract unenforceable. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Vivos Xpoint v. Sindorf" on Justia Law

A former Army specialist was seriously injured in a suicide bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by Ahmad Nayeb, a Taliban operative hired by Fluor Corporation, a military contractor, as part of a program encouraging the hiring of Afghan nationals. The Army’s investigation concluded that Fluor was primarily responsible due to negligent supervision and failure to enforce proper security procedures, including allowing Nayeb to check out tools used in the bombing and to move about the base unsupervised. The plaintiff sued Fluor in federal court in South Carolina, seeking damages under state law for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention of Nayeb.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to Fluor, holding that state-law tort claims were preempted under Fourth Circuit precedent whenever they arose out of combatant activities in a wartime setting. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, adopting a broad “battlefield preemption” doctrine. It reasoned that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) combatant-activities exception, which preserves government immunity for claims arising out of military combatant activities, reflected an intent to bar all tort suits against contractors connected with those activities, regardless of whether the contractor followed or violated military instructions.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit erred in finding the state-law tort claims preempted where the federal government neither ordered nor authorized the challenged conduct. The Supreme Court clarified that neither the Constitution, federal statutes, nor its precedents support such broad preemption. Preemption applies only if the contractor was following government directives or if there is a significant conflict between federal interests and state law, which was not the case here. View "Hencely v. Fluor Corp." on Justia Law

After being injured in a car accident while riding in a vehicle insured by Progressive, the respondent received medical treatment from several providers. The total amount billed for her treatment was $27,786.17. However, as a Medicaid recipient, her providers agreed to accept $1,323.60—paid by Medicaid—as full satisfaction for her medical expenses. The respondent demanded payment of the full $10,000 policy limit under the "Medpay" provision of her Progressive auto insurance policy, but Progressive paid only the $1,323.60 Medicaid had paid, arguing that this was the only amount the respondent actually "incurred."The Circuit Court for Chester County denied Progressive’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and, after a bench trial, found for the respondent. The court determined the term "incurred" was ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of the insured, entitling the respondent to the full amount charged for her medical care. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the full amount billed constituted expenses "incurred," even though the providers accepted less due to Medicaid.The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted certiorari and reversed. It held that the term "expenses incurred" in the policy is unambiguous and means the amount for which the insured is legally obligated to pay. The Court determined the respondent incurred only the amount Medicaid paid, as she had no obligation to pay the providers more. Accordingly, Progressive was required to pay only $1,323.60, and not the higher amounts billed or the policy limit. The Court remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Progressive. View "Jones v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A former CEO of a Delaware corporation, who also founded and controlled the company, entered into a series of employment agreements and amendments with the company’s board. These agreements provided him with substantial severance benefits, including a large special payment of restricted stock units and cash, under specific termination conditions—such as his removal from board leadership or a change in board composition. The agreements also included a forum selection clause requiring that disputes “arising out of or relating to” the contract be litigated exclusively in the Superior Court of California. After an activist hedge fund succeeded in electing new directors and the CEO lost control, he resigned and claimed entitlement to the severance and special payment. He initiated litigation in California to enforce his rights under the agreement.Meanwhile, the company’s newly reconstituted board deemed the CEO terminated for cause and filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The company sought to invalidate the employment agreements, alleging they were the product of the CEO’s breaches of fiduciary duty and that their terms improperly entrenched his control and penalized stockholders. The company argued Delaware was the proper forum based on its bylaws and the nature of the claims.The Delaware Court of Chancery reviewed the case. The court held that, because of the recently enacted Section 122(18) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the forum selection clause in a governance agreement (such as this employment agreement with a controller/stockholder) is enforceable and can validly require internal affairs and fiduciary duty claims relating to the agreement to be litigated outside Delaware. The court found the agreement was covered by Section 122(18) and that all claims “arose out of or related to” the agreement. The court granted the CEO’s motion to dismiss, holding that venue was proper only in California. View "Masimo Corporation v. Kiani" on Justia Law

Two individuals purchased Florida prepaid college tuition savings plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006. The plans promised to cover tuition at Florida public colleges or transfer an equivalent amount to non-Florida colleges if the beneficiary chose to attend elsewhere. In 2007, the Florida Legislature authorized a new “tuition differential” fee, exempting holders of existing plans from paying that fee at Florida colleges. The Florida Prepaid College Board amended the plan contracts to specify that this new fee was not covered for out-of-state schools. Over a decade later, when both daughters chose to attend out-of-state colleges, the Board declined to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition differential fee.The purchasers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s refusal violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Board from applying the statutory exemption and contract amendments to beneficiaries attending non-Florida schools. The Board moved to dismiss, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, reasoning the relief sought was prospective. However, the district court disagreed, ruling that the relief requested was essentially a demand for a refund, thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity because the relief sought would require specific performance of a contract with the state, which is not permitted under Ex parte Young and related Supreme Court precedent. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, as the dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board" on Justia Law

Two builders’ associations, whose members are largely non-union construction contractors, challenged a federal procurement mandate issued by executive order in February 2022. The order, issued by the President, presumptively requires all contractors and subcontractors on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more to enter into project labor agreements with unions. The order allows for three specific exceptions if a senior agency official provides a written explanation. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued regulations implementing the order, and the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance. The associations argued that the mandate unfairly deprived their members of contracting opportunities and brought a facial challenge under several statutory and constitutional grounds, seeking to enjoin the mandate’s enforcement.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the associations were likely to succeed on their claim under the Competition in Contracting Act, since the government was not meaningfully applying the order’s exceptions, but concluded that the associations would not suffer irreparable harm because they could challenge individual procurements in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The district court did not consider irreparable harm as to the associations’ other claims.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, although for different reasons. The Eleventh Circuit held that the associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial challenge under the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. The court emphasized that the existence of written exceptions in the executive order precluded a facial invalidity finding, and that the government acted within its statutory and proprietary authority. The court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast Chapter v. General Services Administration" on Justia Law

A sports agent entered into a written agreement with a professional basketball player’s company to receive a commission on all marketing income generated from leads initially produced by the agent. Under an endorsement contract with a sportswear company negotiated by the agent, the player’s company received compensation in several forms, including one million shares of restricted stock that vested over time. The agent was paid commissions on cash compensation as EmTurn, the player’s company, received it. However, no commission was paid or invoiced for the stock compensation until years later, after the player was no longer represented by the agent and had sold a substantial number of the shares.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware, after cross-motions for summary judgment, concluded that the stock compensation qualified as “marketing income” under the agreement and thus was commissionable. However, the court found the agreement was ambiguous as to when the commission on the stock was due. By examining the parties’ course of performance, the court decided the commission was due when the stock vested, not when it was sold. Because the last shares vested in 2016 and the lawsuit was not filed until 2022, the court held the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations and dismissed the agent’s claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed that the stock was commissionable under the agreement, rejecting the player’s argument that the absence of specific payment mechanisms rendered it non-commissionable. However, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s statute of limitations ruling, finding genuine factual disputes regarding when payment was due for the stock commission—either at vesting or at sale. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings for a factfinder to determine what constituted a reasonable time for payment, which would resolve the limitations issue. View "F.A.M.E. LLC v. Emturn LLC" on Justia Law

During the Second World War, Chevron’s corporate predecessor operated oil fields in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, producing crude oil that was refined into aviation gasoline (avgas) for the United States military under federal contracts. Decades later, following the enactment of Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, which imposed permit requirements on certain uses of the coastal zone but exempted uses lawfully commenced before 1980, Plaquemines Parish and other parishes brought suit in state court. They alleged that Chevron and other oil companies had failed to obtain required permits and that some pre-1980 activities, including those during the war, were illegally commenced and not exempt.The parish’s expert report specifically challenged Chevron’s wartime crude-oil production methods, including its use of vertical drilling, canals, and earthen pits, as harmful to the environment and not in compliance with the Act. Chevron sought removal to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1), arguing that the suit was “for or relating to” acts under color of its duties as a federal contractor refining avgas. The United States District Court granted the parish’s motion to remand to state court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that although Chevron acted under a federal officer as a military contractor, the suit did not “relate to” those acts because the federal refining contract did not govern how Chevron obtained or produced crude oil.The Supreme Court of the United States held that Chevron plausibly alleged a close, not tenuous or remote, relationship between the challenged crude-oil production and its federal avgas refining duties. The Court concluded that the suit satisfied the “relating to” requirement for removal under §1442(a)(1), vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish" on Justia Law