Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a Court of Appeals' decision affirming a circuit court order denying petitioner's John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods of the Carolinas, Inc.'s ("JWH") motion to compel arbitration. JWH sold lots and "spec" homes on a sixty-five acre residential subdivision. In 2007, respondents ("the Parsons") executed a purchase agreement to buy a home built and sold by JWH ("the Property"). In 2008, the Parsons discovered PVC pipes and a metal lined concrete box buried on their Property. The PVC pipes and box contained "black sludge," which tested positive as a hazardous substance. JWH entered a cleanup contract with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. JWH completed and paid for the cleanup per the cleanup contract. The Parsons claim they were unaware the Property was previously an industrial site and contained hazardous substances. In 2011, the Parsons filed the present lawsuit alleging JWH breached the purchase agreement by failing to disclose defects with the Property, selling property that was contaminated, and selling property with known underground pipes. The Parsons further alleged breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, unfair trade practices, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and gross negligence, and fraud. JWH moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. The motion asserted that all of the Parsons' claims arose out of the purchase agreement, and the Parsons clearly agreed that all such disputes would be decided by arbitration. The circuit court denied the motion and found the arbitration clause was unenforceable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's finding that the scope of the arbitration clause was restricted to Warranty claims and declined to address the circuit court's application of the outrageous torts exception doctrine. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court's conclusion and reversed. View "Parsons v. John Wieland Homes" on Justia Law

When David Goldan began working as an independent contractor insurance agent for Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers and Goldan entered into an Agency Appointment Agreement defining the parties’ rights and obligations. After Farmers terminated Goldan, Farmers sued Goldan alleging that Goldan breached his contractual duties and fiduciary responsibilities under the Agreement by soliciting and servicing the insurance business of policyholders within a year of his termination. Goldan counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging that Farmers terminated him without cause. The jury ruled in favor of Goldan on all issues. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) by denying Farmers’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the question of damages; (2) in denying Farmers’ motion for sanctions based on Goldan’s alleged discovery violations; and (3) in concluding that damages should not be limited to a three-month notice period allowed in the contract for terminations without cause. View "Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Goldan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated, filed suit against GameStop for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violation of Minnesota’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), Minn. Stat. 325F.68, et seq. Plaintiff alleged that GameStop's disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) to a third party (Facebook) violated an express agreement not to do so. The district court granted GameStop's motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's lack of standing. The court concluded that plaintiff provided sufficient facts alleging that he is party to a binding contract with GameStop, and GameStop does not dispute this contractual relationship; GameStop has violated that policy; and plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of GameStop's breach. The court also concluded that plaintiff has standing to bring his breach-of-contract claim and to bring his other claims. The court concluded, however, that the privacy policy unambiguously does not include those pieces of information among the protected PII. Therefore, the protection plaintiff argues GameStop failed to provide was not among the protections for which he bargained by agreeing to the terms of service, and GameStop thus could not have breached its contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff's Minnesota CFA claims fail for similar reasons. Finally, plaintiff has not alleged a claim for unjust enrichment or the related claim of money had and received. View "Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc." on Justia Law

Mago appealed from an order in which judgment was entered in favor of LHB after resolution of cross‐motions for summary judgment. Principally at issue is whether Mago complied with terms of a standby letter of credit issued by LHB - specifically whether the submission of unsigned copies of bills of lading complied with the letter’s requirement that Mago provide a photocopy of a bill of lading evidencing shipment of the goods to the applicant. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the unsigned copies did not evidence shipment and thus Mago did not strictly comply. The court considered Mago's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mago Int’l, LLC v. LHB AG" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Mercury for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs for $3 million plus interest from the date of judgment in the underlying personal injury action. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the finding that Mercury unreasonably refused to accept the modified release where the offering of the policy limits was not sufficient in and of itself to defeat a bad faith claim as a matter of law, and substantial evidence supports the referee’s finding that Mercury unreasonably rejected the policy limits settlement proposed by counsel for plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Barickman v. Mercury Cas. Co." on Justia Law

In Suffolk I, the Supreme Judicial Court held that Reading Co-Operative Bank (Bank) was allowed to require Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. (Suffolk) to perform fully Suffolk’s obligations pursuant to a collateral assignment of payments under a subcontract between Suffolk and Benchmark Mechanical Systems, Inc. (Benchmark) to secure a debt owed by Bankmark to the Bank. Suffolk subsequently commenced this action to recover the surplus that resulted when the Bank applied that collateral to satisfy Benchmark’s debt. Suffolk’s equitable claims for implied subrogation and implied indemnification were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Suffolk’s common-law claims were dismissed as time-barred. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Suffolk’s common-law claims were time-barred; but (2) Suffolk stated viable equitable claims to prevent Benchmark’s potential windfall and unjust enrichment for which relief can be granted. View "Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc. v. Benchmark Mechanical Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

For more than 40 years, participants in the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System (TVARS) received cost-of-living adjustments on top of their investment returns, pension benefits, and supplemental benefits. In 2009, with the system’s financial health in jeopardy, the TVARS board amended the rules that govern the system to cap or eliminate cost-of-living adjustments for the years 2010–2013, increase the eligibility age for cost-of-living adjustments, and lower the interest rate on a savings fund. The participants sued. None of their claims survived summary judgment. According to the district court, the plaintiffs did not have a private right of action to enforce the board’s compliance with the TVARS rules, and a Takings claim failed on the merits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part; cost-of-living adjustments are not vested, the agencies were also entitled to summary judgment on the merits of the claim that the board violated TVARS rules by reducing vested benefits. The court remanded remaining claims alleging violations of the TVARS rules because those claims are judicially reviewable in the context of this case. View "Duncan v. Muzyn" on Justia Law

Coles sued to recover an overdue loan that he had extended to a real estate investment company, Cascade. The loan was guaranteed by Glaser and Taylor. That case was settled when Cascade ostensibly paid off the loan, and Coles, in return, executed a release. Shortly after the settlement, Cascade filed for bankruptcy. Coles was forced to surrender most of the settlement proceeds to the bankruptcy trustee as a preferential payment. In a second suit, against Glaser and Taylor, the trial court found that the defendants had breached the settlement agreement and entered judgment in favor of Coles. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that a debt of a contractual co-obligor is not extinguished by another co- obligor's​ pre-bankruptcy payment to a creditor that is later determined to be a bankruptcy preference. View "Coles v. Glaser" on Justia Law

Rabinak worked full‐time as a business representative for the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters and, incidental to that position, served on the Council’s Executive Board. He received quarterly payments of $2,500 for his service on the Board, paid by checks separate from those for Rabinak’s weekly salary. When he retired, Rabinak qualified for a pension from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund, governed by ERISA. The compensation amount upon which the Fund calculated his annual retirement benefit did not include the $10,000 he had received each year from the Council. The Fund’s appeals committee denied an appeal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The plan’s definition of compensation includes only “salary,” and the $2,500 quarterly payments for Board service were paid separately from Rabinak’s weekly salary payments and coded differently as well. The conclusion that the payments at issue were not salary payments under his particular plan was not arbitrary and capricious. View "Rabinak v. United Bhd. of Carpenters Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted in three separate criminal cases for his involvement in various drug-related crimes. The parties eventually negotiated a plea deal that resolved the three criminal cases. The plea agreement memorialized a joint sentencing recommendation and contained a provision in which Appellant waived his right to appeal. After he was sentenced, Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court should have accepted the plea agreement’s guideline calculations. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding Appellant’s appeal was barred by the appeal waiver, that the agreement’s sentence recommendation provision was not ambiguous, and that there was no breach of the plea agreement. View "United States v. Betancourt-Perez" on Justia Law