Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Prairie Supply, Inc. ("Prairie") sued Raymond Winter, doing business as Prairie Wood Products, in small claims court alleging Winter sold Prairie wood stakes that did not conform to samples provided to Prairie. Winter answered, alleging Prairie's claim affidavit was defective, and he was not a party to the contracts with Prairie. Winter asserted the agreements for the wood stakes were between Prairie and his employer Pro Pallet, Inc., a North Dakota corporation doing business as Prairie Wood Products. After an unrecorded hearing, the small claims court entered a $15,000 judgment against Winter. Winter petitioned the district court for a writ of certiorari, arguing the small claims court exceeded its jurisdiction. The district court denied Winter's petition, concluding the small claims court had jurisdiction over the action, and Winter was improperly seeking to use a writ of certiorari to appeal from the small claims court judgment. Finding that the small claims court did not exceed its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court affirmed and declined supervisory jurisdiction. View "Winter v. Solheim" on Justia Law

Ronald Olson and Marlys Kjellberg appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing their action for damages against Alerus Financial Corporation, Alerus Financial, National Association ("Alerus Entities") and Jayson Menke, and an order denying leave to amend their complaint. Robert Olson, Ronald Olson and Marlys Kjellberg ("Olsons") are siblings who owned farm real estate in Grand Forks County, North Dakota. Jayson Menke was a real estate agent with Botsford & Qualey Land Company of Grand Forks. On June 9, 2011, the Olsons signed a real estate listing agreement with Botsford Qualey and Menke that provided Botsford Qualey with the exclusive right to sell 200 acres of the Olsons' farmland. The listing agreement stated, "Seller is solely responsible for determining the appropriate listing price and has elected to offer the property by Conventional Sale." Menke provided the Olsons an analysis of their farmland, estimating the fair market value at $1,500 per acre. The Olsons increased the listing price to $1,700 per acre. The listing agreement shows an initially proposed sale price of $225,000, which the Olsons increased when they crossed out that amount and inserted $340,000 as the selling price. The Olsons' long-time tenant made a written offer to buy the land at the full asking price of $1,700 per acre. he Olsons and Menke subsequently learned the tenant was attempting to resell the farmland at a higher price than he agreed to pay the Olsons. On August 30, 2011, the tenant closed on his purchase from the Olsons. That same day, the tenant closed on the sale of the same farmland to a nearby farmer for $500 more per acre than he paid the Olsons. On December 15, 2011, Alerus Financial, N.A. acquired the stock of Botsford Qualey and Botsford Qualey filed notice of intent to dissolve. the Olsons sued "Alerus Financial Corporation (former parent company of Botsford & Qualey Land Company)." Alerus Financial Corporation answered. At about the same time, Botsford Qualey and Menke served a joint answer to the complaint even though they were not listed as defendants or served with the summons. The Olsons moved to amend the complaint to add Alerus Financial, N.A., Menke and Botsford Qualey as defendants. On April 4, 2014, the district court granted the Olsons leave to add Alerus Financial, N.A. and Menke as defendants but did not allow the Olsons to add Botsford Qualey. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's order denying leave to amend the complaint and remanded for further proceedings. The Court also reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment dismissing the Olsons' claims against Menke for breach of fiduciary duty. The Court affirmed the district court's order for summary judgment dismissing the Olsons' claims seeking to impose respondeat superior liability on the Alerus entities and to pierce the Alerus entities' corporate veil. View "Olson v. Alerus Financial Corp." on Justia Law

A Union Pacific Railroad train t-boned an SRM dump truck as the truck crossed the tracks in the path of the train. The collision killed the truck driver and derailed the train causing extensive damage to the train’s engines, its cars, and three of its workers. The three injured train workers sued Union Pacific, SRM, and SRM’s primary auto liability insurer, Bituminous Insurance Company, in state court. Union Pacific cross-claimed against SRM and SRM counter cross-claimed. As SRM’s excess liability insurer, Great American Insurance Company, received notice of the claims and monitored the case for potential exposure under its umbrella policy. Under Oklahoma law, a primary insurer owes its insured a duty to initiate settlement negotiations with a third-party claimant if the insured’s liability to the claimant is clear and the insured likely will be held liable for more than its insurance will cover. Here, SRM sought to extend this obligation Great American. Specifically, SRM claimed that Great American breached its insurance policy and duty of good faith and fair dealing by not proactively investigating claims against SRM and by refusing to tender its policy limits to spur settlement negotiations. The district court granted Great American’s motion for summary judgment on SRM’s claims and denied SRM’s request to reconsider. The Tenth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court judgment and affirmed. View "SRM v. Great American Insurance" on Justia Law

Plaintiff produced the motion picture The Merry Gentleman, which was released in 2009. Despite some critical acclaim, the film was a commercial flop, for which the plaintiff blames Michael Keaton, the film’s lead actor and director. It filed a breach of contract action against Keaton and Keaton’s “loan-out company” that he uses for professional contracting, alleging that Keaton failed to timely prepare the first cut of the film; submitted an incomplete first cut; submitted a revised cut that was not ready to watch; communicated directly with Sundance Film Festival and threatened to boycott the festival if it did not accept his director’s cut instead of the producers’ preferred cut; failed to cooperate with the producers during the post-production process; and failed to promote the film. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Keaton, agreeing that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that Keaton’s alleged breaches caused the damages sought: all $5.5 million spent producing the movie. View "Merry Gentleman, LLC v. George & Leona Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

The Lapideses renewed a loan from Venture Bank secured by a third mortgage on their home. Howard subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. After Howard’s personal debts were discharged, the Lapideses executed two “Change in Terms Agreements,” each of which extended the maturity date of the loan for six months. When Howard ceased making payments under these agreements, Venture Bank sought a declaratory judgment that the agreements were valid and enforceable. Howard counterclaimed that Venture Bank’s efforts to obtain payments after his discharge violated the discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. 524(a)(2). The bankruptcy court denied Venture Bank’s claim for a declaratory judgment and awarded Howard damages and attorney’s fees. The district court and Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding a finding that Howard’s payments were not voluntary within the meaning of section 524(f) and did not comply with the requirements of a reaffirmation agreement under section 524(c). The post-discharge agreements served no purpose other than reaffirmation agreements in which Howard agreed to repay all of his discharged personal debt and lacked consideration. View "Venture Bank v. Lapides" on Justia Law

American manufactures and Southland sells iron castings. After operating under a verbal agreement for years, the companies entered into a written “Exclusive Representation Agreement” in 2010. American was aware Southland represented other foundries. The contract incorporated lists of American’s active and potential customers and identified the companies with which Southland had an existing relationship, but did not define covered “products.” Both agreed to noncompete clauses. In 2011, Southland obtained $32.5 million in new sales —80% of American’s total new sales. In 2012, American CEO Fuller began advocating for replacement of Southland with an internal sales team. Fuller later determined that Southland was providing quotes that he considered to be a breach of the contract, but did not immediately address the issue. American began to organize an internal sales force. Meanwhile, Southland continued seeking orders and obtained $24 million in new business for American. After several months, American notified Southland that American considered Southland in breach and sent a termination letter. American did not explain and discontinued paying commissions. Southland sued, alleging American breached the contract by not providing adequate notice of breach or the opportunity to cure and by not paying continuing commissions. American alleged Southland had committed an incurable breach such that notice and the opportunity to cure were not necessary. The district court denied summary judgment, finding the contract ambiguous with respect to the terms “Products” and “compete.” The Eighth CIrcuit affirmed findings that American breached the contract and owed Southland $3.8 million in damages based on the sales during the post-termination period. View "Southland Metals, Inc. v. Am. Castings LLC" on Justia Law

Child Craft manufactured furniture. Bienias owns Summit. The parties had a long-standing business relationship. Child Craft contracted with Summit to supply raw wood for a planned line of high-end baby furniture, the “Vogue Line.” Summit sourced the goods from an Indonesian manufacturer, Cita. At Bienias’s request, Child Craft did not have direct contact with Cita. In 2008-2009 Child Craft issued purchase orders to Summit, worth about $90,000. Each included detailed specifications, including that the moisture content of the wood needed to be between 6% and 8%. The goods never conformed to its specifications, in spite of Bienias’s assurances that they would. Child Craft identified the goods as defective upon receipt and refused to pay for shipments. It spent considerable time trying to re-work the products. Child Craft was never able to sell the Vogue Line and ceased operations in 2009. Summit sued for breach of contract and conversion based on refusal to pay. Child Craft counterclaimed for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, seeking to $5 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages of $5 million. Only Child Craft’s counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation against Bienias personally was tried. A judge awarded $2.7 million, against Bienias and Summit. The Seventh Circuit reversed the award. Under Indiana law, a buyer who has received non-conforming goods cannot sue a seller for negligent misrepresentation to avoid the economic loss doctrine, which limits the buyer to contract remedies for purely economic loss. There is no basis for transforming the breach of contract claim into a tort claim to hold the seller’s president personally liable. View "JMB Mfg., Inc. v. Harrison Mfg., LLC." on Justia Law

Otoe County School District 66-0111 (the District) and Facilities Cost Management Group, LLC (FCMG) entered into a contract whereby FCMG provided services in connection with the construction and renovation of three schools within the District. FCMG later filed suit against the District, alleging breach of contract for the District’s failure to pay the full amount due under the contract. The parties filed cross-motions for partially summary judgment on the issue of whether the contract was ambiguous, specifically sections 11.2 and 12.7. The district court determined that sections 12.7 and 11.2 were not ambiguous and granted summary judgment in favor of FCMG. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it determined that section 12.7 of the contract is not ambiguous, but the court erred when it determined that section 11.2 is not ambiguous; and (2) therefore, the district court committed prejudicial error when it instructed the jury that “the contract in this case is not ambiguous.” Remanded for a new trial. View "Facilities Cost Mgmt. Group v. Otoe Cty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Creative, an Iowa corporation, designs and sells beauty products. LF, a Hong Kong corporation, with its principal place of business in Hong Kong, provides services, including product development, shipping oversight, and production planning. LF contacted Unger, President of Creative, in Iowa, seeking to manage Creative’s operations in China and e-mailed a presentation describing proposed services. Unger traveled to Hong Kong to execute the contract. LF managed Creative’s supply chain; the companies communicated extensively electronically and by telephone for two years. As required by the contract, LF shipped pre-production and production samples (made in China by third party factories) to Iowa. LF received payments from Creative’s customers on its behalf, and sent proceeds, less deductions, to Iowa. No LF agents or employees visited Iowa and LF has no connection with Iowa outside of this business relationship. Creative filed suit in Iowa, alleging that LF breached the contract by sending samples that could not be used because they were defective. The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that a reasonable jury could find that LF had sufficient contacts with Iowa to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction and that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. View "Creative Calling Solutions Inc v. LF Beauty Ltd." on Justia Law

FedEx contracts with operators to take packages from its terminals to homes and businesses. FedEx assigns each territory to an operator. Former operators claim that FedEx defrauded them as to their employment status, denying them benefits, such as overtime pay and workers’ compensation. Operators were paid based on the numbers of packages and stops serviced and were not required to drive personally; they could hire others, subject to FedEx’s qualifications. Operators received a proprietary interest in their territories, which they could sell, subject to approval. FedEx could not fire the operators at will during their contract terms, but could fire them for cause, and could choose not to renew their contracts for any reason. Operators provided their own vehicles. FedEx managers could ride along on four delivery runs per year. Contracts stated that an operator made deliveries “strictly as an independent contractor, and not as an employee,” but FedEx required that operators’ vehicles bear FedEx’s logo and be painted “FedEx White.” Operators had to provide proof of inspection and maintenance. Drivers had to wear a FedEx uniform and meet FedEx personal appearances standards. Drivers were subject to background, credit, and drug checks. They had to use FedEx package scanners. The district court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment, finding no genuine dispute that they were FedEx employees, even though under Missouri law employment status is an issue of fact. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that a reasonable jury could disagree. View "Gray v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc." on Justia Law