Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Appellant Leo Gilbride contended that the district court erred by refusing his request for attorney’s fees. The underlying dispute arose out of a sale of real property between Respondent David Kosmann and Gilbride, which was executed with the alleged understanding that Gilbride would re-convey the property back to Kosmann at a later time. After purchasing the property, with down payment funds provided by Kosmann, Gilbride refused to re-convey the property to Kosmann. Accordingly, Kosmann filed a complaint against Gilbride alleging, inter alia, unjust enrichment and demanding specific performance of Gilbride’s promise to re-convey the property. The district court dismissed the specific enforcement claim, awarded Kosmann $30,990 based on his unjust enrichment claim, and denied both parties’ claims for attorney’s fees. Finding no reversible error in the district court's order, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kosmann v. Gilbride" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review was found in a series of e-mails exchanged between two business partners who jointly owned a document shredding company, and whether those e-mails (read together) constituted an enforceable contract to sell one partner's interest in the company to the other partner. Defendant-seller appealed the trial court's determination that the partners had an enforceable contract and that seller was obligated to negotiate the remaining terms of the deal in good faith. He argued that there were too many open terms to produce an enforceable contract and that the partners had no intent to be bound to a contract by their e-mails. Plaintiff-buyer cross-appealed, arguing that the e-mails demonstrated an intent to be bound, and that the Supreme Court should enforce the contract. The Supreme Court rejected the buyer's argument that the parties had entered into a fully-completed contract, and agreed with the seller that there was no enforceable contract at all. The Court reversed the trial court which held to the contrary, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the seller. View "Miller v. Flegenheimer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit against their former employer, alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), and other state wage payment statutes, including the New York Labor Law and California Labor Code. They claimed that Medline’s practice of accounting for year-to-year sales declines in calculating and paying commissions was impermissible under the terms of their employment agreements and state wage laws. The district court granted Medline summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs had not performed enough work in Illinois for the IWPCA to apply and that Medline and the plaintiffs had agreed to Medline’s method of calculating commissions, so there was no violation of state wage laws. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Medline’s commission structure is consistent with the written agreements. The court rejected an argument that the structure was, nonetheless, a per se violation of New York and California labor law because it impermissibly recoups Medline’s business losses from its Sales Representatives, even when those losses are outside Sales Representatives’ control. Medline’s inclusion of negative growth in its commission calculation was not an unlawful deduction in disguise, but rather a valid means of incentivizing their salespeople to grow business in their assigned territories. View "Cohan v. Medline Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Bank foreclosed its loan on residential real estate and resold the property to Buyers. The purchase agreement for the transaction contained an arbitration clause. After Buyers learned that another bank had a superior lien against the real estate they sued Bank for damages. Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the purchase agreement. The district court sustained the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the purchase agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, and Buyers’ claims were subject to the arbitration clause; and (2) there was no merit to Buyers’ other arguments. View "Wilczewski v. Charter West National Bank" on Justia Law

Todd Hill, Roy Hill, Brian Hill, and Debra Hill Stewart were the children of Leroy Hill, who died testate in 2009. Deborah D. Hill, Leroy’s second wife, offered Leroy's will for probate. The Hill children hired attorneys Vincent Kilborn III and David McDonald to bring a breach-of-contract action against the estate and Deborah, alleging breach of an agreement between Leroy and the Hills' mother at the time Leroy divorced the Hills' mother in 1984 to make a will leaving the Hills a coffee company and a family ranch. The Hills and the attorneys entered into a retainer agreement, which required the Hills to pay the attorneys "40% of any recovery, in the event there is a recovery, with or without suit." According to the agreement, "recovery" included cash, real or personal property, stock in the Leroy Hill Coffee Company, and all or part ownership in the family ranch. After a trial, a judgment was entered for the Hills ordering specific performance of the contract, which required the conveyance of the coffee company and the ranch to the Hills. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, without an opinion. At issue before the Supreme Court involved the attorney fee. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court exceeded the scope of its discretion when it failed to order the payment of the attorney fee in accordance with the retainer agreement. The Hills petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate two order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, they argued that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to determine the 40% contingency fee owed the attorneys was an administrative expense of the estate and, consequently, that the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction when any subsequent order at issue in this case. The Supreme Court concluded the circuit court had jurisdiction over the administration of the estate, so the petition for a writ of mandamus (case no. 1150162) was denied; the orders pertaining to payment of the retainer were reversed (case no. 1150148) and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Hill v. Kruse" on Justia Law

In early 2008, plaintiff-appellant Taghi Alereza agreed to help his nephew Habib (Bobby) purchase a business consisting of a gas station and convenience store in Sacramento. They planned to have Bobby run the business. Alereza’s role involved nothing more than providing the initial purchase funds and a $100,000 note secured by his residence. The sole issue in this appeal centered on whether escrow company Chicago Title Company (Chicago Title) owed a legal duty of care to Alereza, who was not a party to the escrow nor mentioned as a third party beneficiary in the escrow instructions. Chicago Title admitted its employee negligently listed the wrong name of the insured (the purchaser of the gas station business) when securing a new certificate of insurance for the business. “This was the first of a series of missteps by several persons that eventually led to Alereza giving a personal guarantee to save the gas station business.” Claiming damages for losses incurred after giving his personal guarantee, Alereza sued Chicago Title. The trial court granted Chicago Title’s motion for nonsuit, and Alereza appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded Chicago Title did not owe a duty of care to Alereza because he was not a party to the escrow, not mentioned in the escrow instructions as a third party beneficiary, and did not sustain his losses as a direct result of the escrow company’s negligence. View "Alereza v. Chicago Title Co." on Justia Law

This case arose out of dispute between the Association of Apartment Owners of Royal Aloha, its former property managers, and its former commercial tenants. The AOAO installed an electricity submetering system and submitted readings of each unit’s electricity submeter to the managing agent, who would bill each owner for electricity. For certain years, some commercial tenants were never billed for electricity, and some were erroneously billed for a portion of those electricity costs. The AOAO sued its former property managers for, inter alia, breach of contract for the billing errors. The AOAO also sued the commercial tenants to recover the unbilled or erroneously billed electricity costs. The circuit court granted summary judgment for all defendants, concluding that all claims were barred under the doctrine of laches. The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the defense of laches applies only to equitable claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that laches is a defense to legal and equitable claims alike. View "Association of Apartment Owners of Royal Aloha v. Certified Management, Inc." on Justia Law

NeYada, Inc., a Nevada corporation, appealed a district court’s order granting summary judgment to Respondent Marian Hoke, and declaring a lease (the “Lease”) and an option to purchase (the “Option”) between the parties invalid and unenforceable. In November 2014, Hoke executed the Lease and Option with NeYada for the transfer of an interest in real property located in Canyon County, Idaho. A mere two months later, Hoke filed suit seeking to invalidate the Lease and the Option alleging, inter alia, that neither document complied with the statute of frauds. Both parties moved for summary judgment on that issue. The district court held that the Lease and Option (together, the “Contract”) were invalid and unenforceable because neither complied with the statute of frauds. Further, the district court held that the doctrine of part performance did not require the enforcement of the otherwise invalid Contract. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's holding, finding that the district court erred by failing to specifically enforce the Contract via the doctrine of part performance. At the time this lawsuit was initiated, NeYada’s performance was essentially complete. At oral argument, Hoke’s counsel admitted that NeYada took actual possession of the Property, and there was “probably nothing” more NeYada could have done. "Such an admission undercut Hoke’s argument against the application of the doctrine of part performance. All that remained to be done was to make monthly payments and to convey title." View "Hoke v. NeYada, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case is a lease for a Gap store in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Gap argues that the lease does not require it to pay for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) expenses and a share of mall operation costs. GK, the mall's management company and owner, disagreed. The district court issued a declaratory judgment in favor of Gap. The court concluded that GK waived the argument that Gap owes it for HVAC expenses under Article 10(B) of the lease. The court also concluded that, reading the ambiguous lease language in conjunction with the extrinsic evidence, a rational factfinder can reach only one conclusion in this case: The parties intended that Gap not be obligated to pay for Center Expenses for the duration of the lease. Because GK points to no evidence that its past HVAC charges were established under Article 11(C), this modification does not affect the district court’s determination that GK breached the lease or its damages award. Accordingly, the court affirmed, modified in part, and remanded the district court's judgment. View "The Gap, Inc. v. GK Development, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, Duke Energy bought, from Benton, renewable energy at a price high enough to enable construction of wind turbines, and acquired tradeable renewable‑energy credits. The contract requires Duke to pay Benton for all power delivered during the next 20 years. When Benton's 100-megawat facility started operating in 2008 it was the only area wind farm. Duke paid for everything Benton could produce. The regional transmission organization, Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which implements a bidding system for the network, cleared the power to the regional grid. By 2015, aggregate capacity of local wind farms reached 1,745 megawatts, exceeding the local grid’s capacity. At times, would‑be producers must pay MISO to take power; buyers get free electricity. Initially, MISO allowed wind farms to deliver to the grid no matter what other producers (coal, nuclear, solar, hydro) were doing, which meant that such producers had to cut back. On March 1, 2013, the rules changed to put wind farms on a par with other producers. Under MISO’s new system, with Duke’s responsive bid, Benton has gone from delivering power 100% of the time the wind allowed to delivering only 59% of the time. The district court agreed with Duke that, when MISO tells Benton to stop delivering power, it does not owe Benton anything, rejecting Benton’s claim that Duke could put Benton’s power on the grid by bidding to displace other power, and that when Duke does not, it owes liquidated damages. The judge found that bidding $0 is “reasonable” cooperation. The Seventh Circuit reversed; the contract implies that Duke must do what is needed to make transmission capacity available. View "Benton County Wind Farm LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc." on Justia Law