Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between John B. Clinton, a former member and manager of CCP Equity Partners, LLC (CCP), and three other members and managers of CCP, Michael E. Aspinwall, Steven F. Piaker, and David W. Young. Clinton alleged that the defendants breached their contractual duties under CCP’s operating agreement by amending the agreement in 2008, removing him as a member in 2013, and maintaining an unnecessary $3 million capital reserve fund.The trial court, after a jury trial, found in favor of Clinton on his breach of contract claim, awarding him damages. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the second sentence of the duty of care provision in the operating agreement as imposing affirmative duties on them and improperly instructed the jury based on that interpretation. They also contended that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony of Clinton’s expert witness regarding the capital reserve fund.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the defendants that the trial court misinterpreted the second sentence of the duty of care provision, which is an exculpatory clause under Delaware law that limits liability rather than creating duties. The court found that the trial court’s jury instructions were incorrect and harmful, as they allowed the jury to find the defendants liable for acting in bad faith or with gross negligence or willful misconduct, which are not duties imposed by the agreement. The court also noted that the trial court improperly delegated the task of determining whether the contract provisions were ambiguous to the jury.The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The court also vacated the trial court’s awards of attorney’s fees, costs, and interest to Clinton. However, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of the expert witness’s testimony regarding the capital reserve fund. View "Clinton v. Aspinwall" on Justia Law

In 2011, Deutsche Bank filed a breach-of-contract action against Walter M. Potenza and Carmela Natale, alleging default on a promissory note and loan modification agreement. Deutsche Bank obtained a judgment for $1,662,837.12 in 2017. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed an independent action in equity, claiming Deutsche Bank committed fraud on the court by falsely asserting it was the holder of the note, despite knowing the note had not been properly endorsed.The Superior Court granted Deutsche Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding no credible evidence of fraud and determining that the plaintiffs' failure to obtain the deposition earlier was due to their attorneys' negligence. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not establish all the elements required for relief under Rule 60(b). Specifically, the plaintiffs admitted Deutsche Bank was the holder of the note in their 2011 answer and did not present evidence or seek a continuance during the 2017 summary judgment hearing. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to challenge the validity of the note or the knowledge of Deutsche Bank's affiant precluded them from obtaining relief. The judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court. View "Potenza v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Colleen Ryan, was injured in a parking lot owned by Sea Colony Recreational Association, Inc. while attending an event organized by Operation SEAs the Day, Inc. Before the event, Ryan signed a liability waiver that covered the event organizer and its agents. Upon arrival, she was directed to park in Sea Colony's lot, where she tripped in a hole and injured her ankle. The relationship between the event organizer and the parking lot owner was not clear from the pleadings.The Superior Court of Delaware granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Sea Colony, concluding that Sea Colony was an agent of the event organizer based on the fact that the parking lot was used for the event. The court found the waiver unambiguous and applicable to Sea Colony, and that Ryan's injuries fell within its scope. Ryan's motion for reargument, which included new information that she was a registered guest at Sea Colony, was denied.The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court erred in finding an agency relationship between Sea Colony and the event organizer based solely on the use of the parking lot. The Supreme Court noted that the pleadings did not contain sufficient facts to establish an agency relationship and that other reasonable inferences could be drawn, such as a license agreement or public use of the lot. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the waiver covered Sea Colony and whether Ryan's injuries fell within its scope. View "Ryan v. Sea Colony Recreational Association, Inc." on Justia Law

A qui tam relator, Sedona Partners LLC, alleged that several transportation service providers (TSPs) engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud a U.S. government shipping program. The TSPs were accused of submitting low-ball bids to win contracts and then falsely certifying the need for foreign flag vessel waivers, despite knowing that U.S. flag vessels were available. This allowed them to use cheaper foreign vessels, thereby increasing their profits while undercutting competitors who submitted legitimate bids.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially dismissed Sedona's first amended complaint without prejudice, citing a lack of specificity in the allegations. Sedona then filed a second amended complaint, which included new allegations based on information obtained during discovery. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint and to strike the new allegations, arguing that they were derived from discovery and thus circumvented the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court agreed, struck the discovery-based allegations, and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that without these allegations, Sedona failed to meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Rule 9(b) does not prohibit courts from considering allegations based on information obtained in discovery when deciding a motion to dismiss. The court emphasized that Rule 9(b)'s text does not restrict the source of information used to satisfy its requirements and that supplementing the rule with such a restriction would contravene the Supreme Court's guidance against adding pleading requirements on a case-by-case basis. The appellate court vacated the district court's order dismissing the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc." on Justia Law

Cory Fitzgerald Sanders, through his company SandTech, LLC, contracted with the federal government to supply teleconference equipment and support services. Sanders won contracts by bidding on the online platform "FedBid" and affirming that he would supply the requested equipment or services according to the contract terms. However, Sanders failed to fulfill these obligations, providing used equipment instead of new, misrepresenting his company's certifications, and using falsified documents to claim higher certification levels. After several contracts were terminated, Sanders formed a new company, CyCorp Technologies, LLC, to continue bidding on federal contracts, again using fraudulent means to secure contracts and conceal the true nature of the equipment provided.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland convicted Sanders of wire fraud, submitting false claims, and submitting a false document. Sanders was sentenced to 45 months in prison. He appealed, arguing that a jury instruction misstated the law and that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for using "sophisticated means" to carry out his fraud.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no error in the jury instructions when considered as a whole, determining that they adequately informed the jury of the required intent and did not mislead or confuse them. The court also upheld the district court's application of the sophisticated means enhancement, noting that Sanders' conduct involved especially complex or intricate offense conduct, including the use of multiple business names, falsified certifications, and blind-shipping to conceal the source of equipment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed both Sanders' convictions and his sentence. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Barbie Jean Schwinn and Deborah Schwinn Bailey filed a lawsuit against Robert Schwinn, TJ Schwinn, and Terry Ann Palazzo to wind up and terminate the Ignaz Schwinn Family Partnership Co. The district court found that the appellants wrongfully dissociated from the partnership, there were no grounds to terminate or wind up the partnership, and the appellants could no longer participate in the management of the partnership. The court granted the appellants a lien against the partnership’s assets for their interests, to be satisfied when the partnership eventually wound up.The district court held a bench trial and dismissed the appellants' claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court also dismissed the appellants' claims to dissolve and wind up the partnership, finding it was a partnership for a definite term or particular undertaking under Illinois law. The court determined the appellants' dissociation was wrongful and that they were not entitled to payment for their interests until the completion of the undertaking. The court denied the appellees' other counterclaims.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the partnership was an at-will partnership, not one for a particular undertaking. The court held that the appellants' dissociation was not wrongful and that their withdrawal triggered the dissolution and winding up of the partnership under Section 801(1) of the Revised Uniform Partnership Act (RUPA). The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the partnership agreement varied the RUPA's default rules and whether winding up was required under Section 801(5)(iii) due to a deadlock in management. The court also instructed the district court to determine if judicial supervision of the winding up was warranted. View "Schwinn v. Schwinn" on Justia Law

Rodney Alexander and Steve Hobart entered into an agreement granting Alexander a right of first refusal to purchase Steve’s cattle and to have Steve’s national forest livestock grazing permit transferred to him. An addendum later clarified that the agreement extended to Steve’s son, Nick. Years later, Nick sold the cattle and transferred the permit to a third party without notifying Alexander, who then sued for breach of contract and fraud. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the contract was void due to impossibility of performance or because it was for an unlawful object, and that the right of first refusal was an unreasonable restraint on property alienation.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, granted the motion, ruling the contract void for impossibility of performance. Alexander appealed, asserting the court erred in its conclusion. Nick, through notice of review, sought to challenge the court’s ruling that the right of first refusal was not an unreasonable restraint on alienation.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case de novo. It found that the contract did not require the Hobarts to transfer the permit directly, but rather that the purchase was contingent on the USFS transferring the permit to Alexander. The court concluded that the contract was not void for impossibility of performance. Additionally, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the right of first refusal was not an unreasonable restraint on alienation, considering the purpose, price, and duration of the agreement, and the mutual consent of the parties.The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order and judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Alexander v. Estate Of Hobart" on Justia Law

Golden View Ready-Mix, LLC (Golden View) supplied concrete to Grangaard Construction, Inc. (Grangaard) for a bridge project. Golden View alleged that Grangaard failed to pay for the concrete, breached the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, and committed fraud. A jury found in favor of Golden View on the breach of contract and good faith claims, awarding damages and punitive damages, but found no liability for fraud. Grangaard appealed the punitive damages award and the decision to submit the fraud issue to the jury.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, McCook County, South Dakota, presided over the case. Grangaard moved for partial summary judgment on the fraud claim, arguing there was no independent tort duty outside the contract. The court denied this motion, allowing the fraud claim to proceed. During the trial, the court permitted the jury to consider punitive damages based on the breach of the implied obligation of good faith, despite Grangaard's objections.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court determined that punitive damages are only recoverable for breaches of obligations not arising from a contract, as per SDCL 21-3-2. The court found that the implied obligation of good faith arises from the contract itself and does not constitute an independent tort that could support punitive damages. Consequently, the court vacated the punitive damages award. However, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment in all other respects, concluding that the error regarding punitive damages did not affect the jury's decision on the breach of contract and good faith claims. View "Goldenview Ready-Mix, LLC v. Grangaard Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

The Nelson Estate claimed an interest in a coin shop and alleged conversion of its property. Dr. Earl Nelson had provided funds for the business, resulting in a 50% ownership interest, which was confirmed by William Tinkcom. After Dr. Nelson's death in 2013, Tinkcom continued to operate the business and assured Nelson's heirs of their 50% interest. Tinkcom died in 2022, and the business was sold to Eddie Welch without including the Nelson Estate in the final agreement. The Nelson Estate sued the Tinkcom Estate, Welch, and Mere Coin Company, LLC, for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims, including conversion of valuable coins and collectibles.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County, South Dakota, granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the statute of limitations barred all claims. The Nelson Estate argued that the statute of limitations had not expired and that equitable estoppel or fraudulent concealment should prevent the statute of limitations defense.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's determination that the first six business interest claims accrued upon Dr. Nelson's death in 2013. However, the court reversed the dismissal of these claims because the circuit court did not address the Nelson Estate's defenses of equitable estoppel and fraudulent concealment. The court also reversed the dismissal of the tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims, as these claims arose from the 2022 sale of the business. Lastly, the court reversed the dismissal of the conversion claim, noting that the record did not establish when the conversion occurred or when the Nelson Estate became aware of it. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Nelson v. Tinkcom" on Justia Law

A wholesale food supplier, Vista Food Exchange, Inc. ("Vista"), sued Comercial De Alimentos Sanchez S De R L De C.V. ("Sanchez") for breach of contract, alleging that Sanchez failed to pay for over $750,000 worth of meat products. Vista claimed that Sanchez was required to make payments to Vista's headquarters in New York, but Sanchez contended it had paid the invoices in cash to Vista's salesman, Eduardo Andujo Rascón, in Tijuana, Mexico. Sanchez supported its claim with declarations and documents, including an affidavit from Rascón stating he received the cash payments.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Sanchez, dismissing Vista's breach-of-contract claim. The court found that Sanchez provided unrefuted evidence of cash payments to Rascón, fulfilling its contractual obligations. It also ruled that even if paying Rascón in cash breached the contract, Vista could not show that its damages were proximately caused by the breach because Rascón's theft of the money was unforeseeable. The court dismissed Vista's other claims for breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, citing New York law that forecloses such claims when an enforceable contract exists.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Sanchez's claimed performance, the modification of the contract, and the foreseeability of damages. The appellate court vacated the district court's judgment dismissing Vista's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and remanded the case for trial on those claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Vista's claims for implied contract and promissory estoppel. View "Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Comercial de Alimentos Sanchez" on Justia Law