Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Lezah Roberts entered into a fixed-price contract with Advanced Building Design, a Maryland-based firm, to build a handicap-accessible addition to her home in the District of Columbia. The project, which began in 2017 and was expected to take six months, remained unfinished nearly two years later. The project went over budget due to price increases and change orders, and Advanced sought to recoup these overages from Roberts. After initially agreeing to cover some additional costs, Roberts eventually refused to pay further increases, leading Advanced to cease work on the project. Roberts then filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) for unfair trade practices.The Superior Court granted Advanced’s motion to dismiss Roberts’s suit, citing a mandatory forum selection clause in the contract that designated Maryland as the exclusive forum for litigation. Roberts appealed, arguing that the forum selection clause was unenforceable because it conflicted with the CPPA and was unconscionable.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and disagreed with Roberts on both counts. The court held that the CPPA does not preclude parties from selecting their preferred forum and that the forum selection clause did not contravene public policy or demonstrate procedural or substantive unconscionability. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Roberts’s complaint. View "Roberts v. Advanced Building Design" on Justia Law

In this case, the husband filed for an absolute divorce, and the wife counterclaimed. The parties attempted mediation but did not reach a settlement. The wife’s counsel later sent a settlement package to the husband’s counsel, which included a Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agreement, a promissory note, and a guaranty. The cover letter specified that the husband needed to sign the agreement and note by the end of the day on September 25, 2020. The husband signed the documents on September 28, 2020, and filed an amended complaint for divorce based on mutual consent, incorporating the agreement.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County found that the husband had timely accepted the wife’s offer and that a binding settlement agreement was formed. The court granted the husband’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and entered a judgment for absolute divorce based on mutual consent, incorporating but not merging the agreement into the judgment. The wife appealed, and the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court’s judgment, finding that the husband had not timely accepted the wife’s offer and that no contract was formed.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment. The court held that the wife’s offer was conditioned on the husband signing the agreement and note by September 25, 2020, and that the husband’s failure to meet this deadline meant that no contract was formed. The court also found no evidence that the wife had waived the deadline. The court concluded that the husband’s signing of the documents on September 28, 2020, constituted a counteroffer, which the wife was not obligated to accept. View "Pattison v. Pattison" on Justia Law

The City of Fort Collins contracted with Open International, LLC, for software services, which led to mutual breach-of-contract claims. The City also alleged that Open's precontractual statements were negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations. A jury found that Open fraudulently induced the City to enter the contract. The City elected to rescind the contract, and the district court held a bench trial on restitution, ordering a judgment of nearly $20 million against Open.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Open's motions for judgment as a matter of law, which argued that the City’s tort claims were barred by the economic-loss rule and the contract’s merger clause. The court also denied Open's motion to require the City to elect a remedy before trial. The jury found in favor of the City on the fraudulent inducement claim, and the City chose rescission, leading to the dismissal of the jury and a bench trial on restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings and the jury’s verdict. The court held that the City’s tort claims were not barred by the economic-loss rule or the contract’s merger clause. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of fraud, particularly regarding Open’s grading of the functionality matrix and the use of a different software portal. The court also upheld the finding that the City did not waive its right to rescind the contract, as there was conflicting evidence about when the City discovered the fraud. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Open’s Rule 50(b) motion, which argued that Open Investments could not be liable for rescission. View "City of Fort Collins v. Open International" on Justia Law

Lisa Bodenburg, an Apple customer, purchased a 200 GB iCloud data storage plan, expecting it to add to the 5 GB of free storage she already had, resulting in a total of 205 GB. When she discovered that the plan only provided 200 GB in total, she filed a putative class action against Apple, alleging breach of contract and violations of California’s consumer protection laws due to Apple’s allegedly deceptive representations about its iCloud storage plans.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Bodenburg’s action with prejudice. The court found that Bodenburg could not state a claim for breach of contract because Apple had fulfilled its contractual obligations by providing the additional storage as described in the iCloud Legal Agreement. The court also found that Bodenburg’s claims under California’s consumer protection laws did not satisfy the “reasonable consumer” test or the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that Bodenburg could not state a claim for breach of contract because the iCloud Legal Agreement did not promise an additional 200 GB of storage but rather additional storage, which Apple provided. The court also held that Bodenburg’s claims under California’s consumer protection laws failed the reasonable consumer test, as Apple’s statements were not misleading when considered in context. Additionally, the claims did not meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements because Bodenburg could not demonstrate that Apple’s statements were false or deceptive. Thus, the dismissal of Bodenburg’s action was affirmed. View "Bodenburg v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Michael Lindell, a Minnesota entrepreneur, challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, claiming to have data proving Chinese interference. Lindell Management LLC (LMC) hosted a "Cyber Symposium" in August 2021, offering a $5 million reward to anyone who could prove the data provided was not from the November 2020 election. Robert Zeidman, a software developer, participated in the challenge, reviewed the data, and concluded it did not contain any information related to the election. The challenge judges disagreed and denied his claim.Zeidman filed for arbitration, and the arbitration panel unanimously found in his favor, ordering LMC to pay the $5 million reward. The panel determined that the contract required participants to prove the data was not related to the election and that Zeidman had met this burden. Zeidman then moved to confirm the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, while LMC sought to vacate it. The district court confirmed the panel's decision, finding that the panel had arguably interpreted and applied the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the arbitration panel had exceeded its authority by using extrinsic evidence to interpret the unambiguous contract terms. The court held that the panel effectively amended the contract by requiring the data to be packet capture data, which violated Minnesota contract law and arbitration precedents. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with directions to grant LMC's motion to vacate the arbitration award. View "Zeidman v. Lindell Management LLC" on Justia Law

Origis USA LLC and Guy Vanderhaegen (the Insureds) appealed a decision by the Superior Court of Delaware, which dismissed their claims against two sets of insurers: the 2021 Insurers and the 2023 Insurers. The Insureds sought coverage for defense costs and potential liabilities arising from an underlying lawsuit filed by former investors in Origis USA’s parent company, alleging fraudulent conduct and breaches of fiduciary duty.The Superior Court dismissed the claims against the 2021 Insurers based on a No Action Clause in the insurance policies, which required a final determination of the Insureds’ liability before any action could be taken against the insurers. The court also dismissed the claims against the 2023 Insurers, concluding that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not constitute a separate claim under the 2023 policies and were barred by Prior Acts Exclusions, which excluded coverage for wrongful acts occurring before November 18, 2021.The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision regarding the 2023 Insurers, agreeing that the allegations did not constitute a separate claim and were excluded by the Prior Acts Exclusions. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration regarding the 2021 Insurers. The court noted that the Superior Court needed to more fully analyze the relationship between the No Action Clause, the Advancement and Allocation provisions, and how they function together, especially given the absence of a duty by the insurers to defend. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a more in-depth analysis of the contract provisions and their intended function. View "Origis USA v. Great American Insurance" on Justia Law

Bernard Perez, an ophthalmologist, entered into a disability insurance contract with MONY Life Insurance Company in 1988. After being diagnosed with throat cancer in 2011, Perez began receiving monthly disability benefits. MONY later suspected Perez of dishonesty in his disability claims and financial information, leading to the discontinuation of payments in February 2018. MONY sued Perez for unjust enrichment, and Perez counterclaimed for breach of contract.The Middle District of Florida held a nine-day trial where evidence showed Perez's deceitful conduct, including misrepresenting his ownership in his medical practice and overstating his physical ailments. The jury found in favor of MONY on the unjust enrichment claim, awarding $388,000, and rejected Perez's breach of contract counterclaim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under Florida law, an unjust enrichment claim cannot proceed when an express contract covers the same subject matter. Therefore, the district court erred in allowing the unjust enrichment claim to go to the jury. The Eleventh Circuit set aside the jury's verdict on this claim and directed the district court to vacate the judgment awarding MONY $448,930.06.Regarding Perez's breach of contract counterclaim, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred in failing to interpret the ambiguous term "acceptable proof of loss" in the insurance contract. However, this error was deemed harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly showed Perez's dishonesty in his proofs of loss. Thus, the jury's verdict against Perez on his breach of contract counterclaim was affirmed. The court also affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings and denial of sanctions. View "MONY Life Insurance Co. v. Perez" on Justia Law

James E. Carroll, Jr. signed a contract with Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc. and SPM Management Company, Inc. for termite protection services for his home. The contract specified the use of the Exterra Termite Interception and Baiting System, with a liability limit of $250,000 for new termite damage. However, the respondents abandoned the bait station system without informing Carroll and began using a liquid application, which was allegedly done negligently. Carroll continued to renew the bait station contract, unaware of the change, and discovered significant termite damage to his home ten years later.Carroll sued the respondents for negligence and breach of contract. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the respondents on the negligence claim, citing the economic loss rule, which confined Carroll's remedy to the breach of contract action. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court clarified that the economic loss rule applies only in the product liability context when the only injury is to the product itself. Since the contract did not involve the sale of a product, the economic loss rule did not apply. The court found that the respondents' conduct in secretly switching to a liquid termiticide application was beyond the contract's scope, creating a duty of due care. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the respondents' negligence and its proximate cause of the termite damage. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with the $250,000 liability limitation applying only if the verdict is based solely on the breach of contract claim. View "Carroll v. Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc." on Justia Law

Jacqueline Davis filed a lawsuit against BetMGM, LLC, in the Wayne Circuit Court, claiming fraud, conversion, and breach of contract after winning over $3 million on BetMGM's online gambling platform. BetMGM approved her withdrawal of $100,000 but later suspended her account, citing a game malfunction that erroneously credited her winnings. BetMGM refused to remit the remaining winnings, leading Davis to file a complaint with the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) and subsequently in court.The Wayne Circuit Court granted BetMGM's motion for summary disposition, ruling that the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) preempted Davis's claims and that the MGCB had exclusive jurisdiction over online gambling disputes. The court relied on caselaw interpreting the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA) and administrative rules under the LIGA, concluding that the LIGA precluded inconsistent common-law claims. Davis's motion for reconsideration was denied.The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision in a split decision. The majority agreed with the lower court's reasoning, while the dissent argued that the MGCB did not have the authority to resolve individual patron disputes and that Davis's claims were not inconsistent with the LIGA. The dissent also noted that the MGCB's role was limited to investigating violations of the LIGA and did not extend to adjudicating disputes between patrons and licensees.The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the LIGA did not abrogate common-law claims of fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. The court clarified that the correct principle to apply was abrogation, not preemption, and found no clear legislative intent to abrogate these common-law claims. The court also determined that Davis's claims were not inconsistent with the LIGA, as the MGCB did not have the authority to resolve such disputes. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Davis v. BetMGM, LLC" on Justia Law

The Vinales family leased a home at Randolph Air Force Base, managed by AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC, and other associated entities. They experienced issues with the home's condition, including mold and asbestos, which they claimed led to health problems and property damage. They sued the housing providers for breach of contract, fraud, and other claims, seeking damages and attorneys' fees.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment for the defendants on most claims, citing the federal enclave doctrine, which limits applicable law to federal law and pre-cession state law. The court dismissed the fraud claim for lack of evidence and denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The breach of contract claim proceeded to trial, where the jury awarded the plaintiffs over $90,000 in damages. The magistrate judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the application of the federal enclave doctrine, which barred most of the plaintiffs' claims. It upheld the dismissal of the fraud claim, agreeing that the plaintiffs failed to identify actionable fraudulent statements. The court also affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees, finding no legal basis for the award. The exclusion of certain evidence at trial was deemed not to be an abuse of discretion. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's damages awards for personal property and diminution in rental value. Finally, the court held that the jury instructions were proper and did not create substantial doubt about the jury's guidance. The judgment of the magistrate judge was affirmed. View "Vinales v. AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC" on Justia Law