Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Several residential property owners in the Pauoa Beach Subdivision, part of the Mauna Lani Resort in Hawaiʻi, challenged the use of a residential lot (Lot B) owned by Exclusive Resorts PBL1, LLC (PBL1). PBL1’s parent company operates a luxury destination club, allowing its members to stay at properties like Lot B in exchange for annual dues. The plaintiffs argued that this arrangement constituted a prohibited “commercial use” under the subdivision’s governing documents, which restrict commercial activity but allow short-term rentals.The dispute began in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, where the court granted summary judgment in favor of PBL1, finding no violation of the residential use restrictions. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated that decision, holding there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether PBL1’s use amounted to a “gainful occupation, profession or trade,” and remanded for further factual findings. On remand, the circuit court reinterpreted the project documents and initially found PBL1 to be a commercial owner, but ultimately determined, based on evidence of actual use, that PBL1’s activities did not rise to the level of commercial use. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, and both sides appealed again.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case. It affirmed the ICA’s conclusion that PBL1’s use of Lot B did not violate the project documents, agreeing that the law of the case doctrine precluded reinterpreting the documents’ meaning. The court also held that the ICA did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to PBL1. However, it reversed the ICA’s award of attorney fees to PBL1, holding that the relevant contract only allowed prevailing plaintiffs, not defendants, to recover such fees. The ICA’s judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "Cowan v. Exclusive Resorts PBL1, LLC" on Justia Law

A Canadian corporation specializing in industrial heaters sought a new supplier and entered negotiations with a South Dakota manufacturer to custom-build 30 heaters. The parties initially agreed to the purchase and sale of 21 units, with a 20% down payment, and later extended the agreement to include the remaining nine units, for a total of 30 heaters at a set price per unit. The manufacturer began production and delivery as payments were made. However, after partial delivery and payment, the buyer stopped making payments, citing performance issues with the heaters and ultimately notified the manufacturer of its intent to terminate the relationship. Despite complaints about the heaters, the buyer did not reject or return any units but continued to accept and sell them until the manufacturer withheld further shipments due to nonpayment.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Day County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for 30 heaters and that the buyer breached the agreement by failing to pay and by terminating the contract. The court also found that the manufacturer had taken reasonable steps to mitigate damages and that the buyer had not properly rejected the goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case de novo. The Supreme Court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for the sale of 30 heaters. However, the Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the alleged defects in the heaters substantially impaired the value of the whole contract, which could excuse the buyer’s nonperformance under the UCC. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding of contract formation, reversed the grant of summary judgment on the breach issue, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence" on Justia Law

A company leased 24 properties from a landlord under separate agreements that included options to renew the leases for additional terms, provided the tenant gave written notice 120 days before expiration. The tenant successfully renewed twice, but in 2021, failed to send the required renewal notice to the landlord by the deadline. The landlord notified the tenant that the leases would terminate, and after unsuccessful negotiations for new leases, the tenant sought a court declaration that its late renewal was still effective, citing the significant value of improvements made to the properties.The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the tenant, finding that equity could forgive the tenant’s “honest mistake” in missing the deadline and prevent forfeiture of the improvements. The court also found that the landlord’s acceptance of rent after the expiration of a tolling agreement estopped the landlord from terminating the leases. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on prior Ohio appellate decisions that allowed equitable relief for honest mistakes or even negligence if forfeiture would result and the landlord was not prejudiced.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Tenth District’s judgment. The court held that while equity may excuse a failure to comply with a lease renewal option in cases of fraud, accident, or mistake, it does not extend to negligence. The court clarified that “mistake” refers to a misapprehension of a basic assumption at contract formation, not a negligent failure to act. Because the tenant’s failure to timely exercise the renewal option was due to negligence, equitable relief was not warranted. The case was remanded to the Tenth District Court of Appeals to consider the landlord’s remaining arguments regarding equitable estoppel. View "Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman, Ltd. Partnership" on Justia Law

A construction worker employed by a subcontractor was injured when a scaffold collapsed at a Manhattan worksite. The worker sued the property owner and general contractor in New York Supreme Court, alleging negligence and violations of state labor laws. The owner’s insurer, Liberty Insurance Corporation, sought a declaration in federal court that the subcontractor’s insurer, Hudson Excess Insurance Company, was obligated to defend and indemnify the owner as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s commercial general liability policy. The subcontract between the general contractor and the subcontractor required the latter to provide insurance coverage for the owner and general contractor.In the New York Supreme Court, summary judgment was granted to the injured worker on some claims, while other claims remained pending. The court denied summary judgment to the owner on its contractual indemnification claim against the subcontractor, finding factual questions about the scope of the subcontractor’s work. Later, after the federal district court’s decision, the state court dismissed all third-party claims against the subcontractor, finding the indemnity provision in the subcontract invalid due to lack of a meeting of the minds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s finding, after a bench trial on stipulated facts, that the subcontractor’s actions proximately caused the worker’s injuries and that Hudson owed a duty to indemnify the owner under the policy. The Second Circuit held that the later state court decision did not alter this result. However, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Liberty, holding that Hudson was entitled to a statutory safe harbor under New York Insurance Law, and thus was not required to pay Liberty’s attorney’s fees for the federal action. View "Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Hudson Excess Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Residents and businesses in Lumberton, North Carolina, experienced severe flooding during Hurricanes Matthew and Florence in 2016 and 2018. The flooding was exacerbated by a gap in the city’s levee system, which existed because a CSX Transportation rail line crossed the area. The City of Lumberton had previously entered into a licensing agreement, known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), with CSX’s predecessor and a local drainage district. The TPA allowed the City to construct and maintain an earthen dike across CSX’s property and, under certain conditions, to close the dike in the event of imminent flooding. However, the City never built the dike. When the hurricanes approached, the City sought permission from CSX to close the gap with emergency sandbags, but CSX refused, resulting in significant flood damage.The plaintiffs, representing a putative class of affected residents and businesses, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, asserting contract and tort claims against CSX. The district court dismissed the tort claims as preempted by federal law and initially dismissed the contract claim, finding the plaintiffs were not intended third-party beneficiaries of the TPA. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the contract claim, allowing it to proceed. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to CSX on three alternative grounds: federal preemption, lack of third-party beneficiary status, and failure to show breach of contract.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs could not show CSX breached the TPA. The court held that, because the earthen dike contemplated by the TPA was never constructed, CSX had no contractual obligation to allow closure of the gap by other means, such as sandbags. The judgment was affirmed. View "Edwards v. CSX Transportation, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of employees at a wealth management firm in Richmond, Virginia, decided to leave their employer and establish a competing business. These employees, who had access to proprietary client information, had signed employment agreements with their former employer that included non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses. The agreements also addressed the industry-wide Protocol for Broker Recruiting, which generally allows departing financial advisors to take certain client information and solicit former clients if specific procedures are followed. However, the agreements stated that their terms would control over the Protocol in the event of any conflict. After resigning, the employees formed a new firm and began contacting their former clients, resulting in the loss of hundreds of accounts and significant assets for their previous employer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the former employer, barring the former employees and their new firm from contacting former clients or using confidential information. The district court found a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the trade secrets claims against all defendants, reasoning that even under the Protocol, the defendants’ conduct constituted impermissible “raiding.” The court also found that the employer would likely suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the Protocol and the employment agreements. The Fourth Circuit held that the Protocol’s “raiding” exception applies only to actions by outside firms targeting another firm’s employees, not to employees leaving to form their own business. The court concluded that the employment agreements, not the Protocol, governed the former employees’ conduct and supported the injunction against them. However, because the new firm was not a party to those agreements, the injunction as to the new firm was vacated. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction against the former employees but vacated it as to the new firm. View "Salomon & Ludwin, LLC v. Winters" on Justia Law

Gary Birdsall was stopped in traffic on the Bay Bridge when his van was rear-ended by Barton Helfet, resulting in serious injuries to Gary and a loss of consortium claim by his wife, Pamela. The Birdsalls’ attorney sent Helfet’s insurer a settlement demand for the $100,000 policy limit, specifying acceptance required delivery of a standard bodily injury release to be executed by both Gary and Pamela, a settlement check, and proof of policy limits by a set deadline. The insurer responded before the deadline with a letter accepting the offer, a release (which mistakenly listed Pamela as a releasee rather than a releasor), the check, and proof of policy limits. A corrected release was sent after the deadline. The Birdsalls’ attorney rejected the settlement, citing the release’s error and the late correction, and returned the check.The Birdsalls filed suit in the San Francisco County Superior Court. Helfet’s answer included affirmative defenses of settlement and comparative fault for Gary’s failure to wear a seat belt. The Birdsalls moved for summary adjudication on the settlement defense, which the law and motion judge granted. At trial, the assigned judge excluded evidence and jury instructions regarding Gary’s seat belt use. The jury found Helfet negligent, awarded substantial damages to both plaintiffs, and judgment was entered. Helfet’s post-trial motions were denied, and he appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It held that summary adjudication of the settlement defense was improper because there was a triable issue of material fact regarding mutual consent to the settlement. The court also found error in excluding seat belt evidence and instructions, holding that such evidence is admissible and, under the circumstances, expert testimony was not required. The judgment and amended judgment were reversed, with instructions for a new trial and denial of summary adjudication. View "Birdsall v. Helfet" on Justia Law

After the collapse of a federally chartered credit union in Ohio in 2010, the National Credit Union Administration Board (the Board) was appointed as liquidating agent. The Board sued Eddy Zai, his wife Tina Zai, and related entities to recover tens of millions of dollars allegedly owed to the credit union. The parties settled, with the Zais agreeing to transfer a promissory note to the Board, which would collect $22 million and then transfer the note to Tina Zai. Years later, Tina Zai alleged that the Board breached the settlement by failing to timely transfer the note after collecting the agreed sum. She, along with Stretford, Ltd., filed suit against the Board for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without reaching the merits of Zai’s claims. The district court reasoned that the Federal Credit Union Act’s jurisdiction-stripping provision barred the court from hearing the case, as Zai had not exhausted administrative remedies with the Board.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the district court had jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit held that the Federal Credit Union Act’s jurisdiction-stripping and administrative-exhaustion provisions apply only to claims that arise before the Board’s claims-processing deadline. Because Zai’s claim for breach of the settlement agreement arose years after the deadline, she was not required to exhaust administrative remedies, and the jurisdictional bar did not apply. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Zai v. National Credit Union Administration Board" on Justia Law

Adriana Ramirez and her family were involved in litigation with third parties, including Harvey Miller and Stockdale Villa Mobile Home Park, where Ramirez was a property manager. After settling employment and unlawful detainer claims, Ramirez alleged that opposing counsel, attorney Sandra McCormack and her law firm, interfered with the settlement by, among other things, disputing the mailing address for settlement checks and failing to ensure the dismissal and sealing of the unlawful detainer action as required by the settlement. Ramirez claimed these actions caused her significant damages and brought several tort and contract-related claims against McCormack and other attorneys involved.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied McCormack’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court relied on precedents involving non-attorney defendants and found that the alleged conduct did not constitute protected petitioning activity under the statute. The court did not address the applicability of Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, which specifically addressed claims against attorneys for litigation-related conduct.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that McCormack’s actions as opposing counsel—such as negotiating settlements, communicating with other attorneys, and advising clients—were protected petitioning activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court found that Ramirez’s claims arose from McCormack’s representation of her clients in litigation, fitting squarely within the statute’s protections as articulated in Thayer. Furthermore, Ramirez failed to present evidence of minimal merit for her claims on appeal, effectively forfeiting the issue. The appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to grant the anti-SLAPP motion and determine the fees and costs Ramirez must pay. View "Ramirez v. McCormack" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when a property owner, after selling his San Diego County home and purchasing property in Trinity County, sought to transfer the base year value of his former property to his new one. In 2009, he sued the Trinity County Board of Supervisors to compel such a transfer under California law. The parties settled in 2012, agreeing that if the County later adopted an ordinance or if a change in law required it, the owner would be entitled to retroactively transfer the base year value. In 2020, after the passage of Proposition 19, which expanded the ability to transfer base year values between counties, the owner requested the transfer from the county assessor, who denied the request.The Superior Court of Trinity County held a bench trial and found in favor of the property owner on his breach of contract claims, ordering the County to specifically perform the settlement agreement and awarding damages. The court rejected the County’s arguments that the agreement was limited to intra-county transfers and that the Board lacked authority to bind the assessor. The court also found that the new law triggered the County’s obligations under the agreement.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, concluded that the Board of Supervisors did not have the authority to direct the county assessor in setting or transferring base year values, as this is a duty assigned by law to the assessor, an elected official independent of the Board’s control. The court held that the 2012 settlement agreement was void and unenforceable because it exceeded the Board’s legal authority. As a result, the judgment on the breach of contract claims was reversed, while the remainder of the judgment was affirmed. The County was awarded its costs on appeal. View "Sceper v. County of Trinity" on Justia Law