Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Toy Box, an LLC organized to operate storage facility sales businesses, distributed an Offering Circular that stated that investors’ funds would be held in escrow and not released unless a minimum of $500,000 in capital was deposited in 2008. If Toy Box did not raise minimum capital by the deadline, the offering would terminate and Toy Box would return investors' funds . Doud executed a subscription agreement and invested $100,000. In June 2008, Toy Box amended its offering, lowering the minimum capital requirement to $350,000. Doud agreed to the amendment. By July 11, 2008, Toy Box had raised $200,000, including Doud’s investment; a manager authorized release of the escrow funds. Days later, Toy Box represented to investors that it had "achieved its threshold funding level and exited escrow with $425,000 in place." In 2011, Toy Box suffered substantial financial losses. Doud lost his investment and sued, alleging breach of the investment agreement and violation of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78j(b)); SEC Rules 10b-5 and 10b-9; and the Iowa Uniform Securities Act. The Eighth Circuit affirmed that Toy Box had breached its agreement by releasing escrow funds before reaching the minimum threshold of funding; that its conduct violated both SEC Rules and the Uniform Securities Act; that Doud had established scienter; and rejecting a claim of good faith. View "Doud v. Toy Box Dev. Co." on Justia Law

Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) entered into an agreement with Patient First Corporation, a medical provider, under which student medical technicians gained experience doing blood draws at Patient First. In the agreement, CCBC agreed to indemnify Patient First for any liability that Patient First might occur, including attorneys’ fees, arising from a negligent act or omission of a student. As a result of an incident involving a failed blood draw by a student, Patient First was sued. The parties in the suit reached a settlement agreement. CCBC challenged its obligation to indemnify Patient First for the settlement payment and attorneys’ fees, asserting that the liability arose from the Patient First’s own negligence. The circuit court ruled that Patient First was entitled to indemnification. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that Patient First bore its burden of proving its entitlement to indemnification and that CCBC did not bear its burden of proving, as an affirmative defense, that Patient First was itself negligent and that the liability arose from that negligence; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the requested attorneys’ fee award was reasonable. Remanded. View "Bd. of Trs., Cmty. Coll. of Baltimore County v. Patient First Corp." on Justia Law

Konig’s SRI Employment Agreement, stated: I agree ….To promptly disclose… all discoveries, improvements, and inventions, including software … during … my employment, and … to effect transfer of ownership … to SRI . . . . I understand that termination of this employment shall not release me from my obligations. While employed by SRI, Konig started generating documents relating to a personalized information services idea called “Personal Web” and formed a company, Utopy. Konig left SRI and filed a provisional patent application in 1999; the 040 patent issued in 2005. In 2001, Konig asked an SRI scientist to test the Utopy products. The 040 patent was eventually assigned to PUM. Konig filed another patent application in 2008. PUM was the assignee; the 276 patent issued in 2010. In 2009, PUM sued Google, asserting infringement. PUM provided interrogatory responses that asserted that the conception of the inventions was while Konig was still at SRI. Google had acquired “any rights” that SRI had and counterclaimed breach of contract. The court stated that no reasonable juror could have found that the injury was “inherently unknowable,” applied the three-year limitations period for contracts claims, and granted PUM judgment on the counterclaim. The court also entered judgment of invalidity and noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that the claim construction had no effect on the outcome and declining to issue an advisory opinion. View "Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

Electrical Wholesale Supply Co. (EWS) filed this action seeking payment for electrical materials it supplied to a commercial building remodel. EWS sued, among other defendants, Alane Fraser, the owner of the commercial property, and M.J. Bishop Concrete & Construction, Inc. (Bishop Construction), the general contractor, for foreclosure of a construction lien, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and third party beneficiary. The circuit court denied EWS’s claims. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the circuit court (1) applied the wrong statute to the lien notice issue and erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Fraser on the lien claim; but (2) did not err in concluding that EWS did not prove its unjust enrichment claim against Fraser and Bishop Construction. View "Elec. Wholesale Supply Co., Inc. v. Fraser" on Justia Law

This case arose from a dispute over the adequacy of concrete work Nordic PCL Construction, Inc. performed on a condominium construction project as a subcontractor to LPIHGC, LLC. The parties proceeded to arbitration. An arbitrator selected by the parties issued an arbitration award in favor of LPIHGC. LPIHGC moved to confirm, and Nordic moved to vacate, the arbitration award. The circuit court denied the motion to vacate and granted the motion to confirm. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator failed to disclose various relationships with the law firms of LPIHGC’s attorneys. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment on appeal and the circuit court’s final judgment, thereby vacating the associated orders granting LPIHGC’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and denying Nordic’s motion to vacate the arbitration award, holding that because the factual and/or legal bases upon which the circuit court denied the motion to vacate were unascertainable, the Supreme Court was unable to appropriately review the circuit court’s ruling. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing and entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law on Nordic’s motion to vacate. View "In re Arbitration of Nordic PCL Constr., Inc. v. LIPHGC, LLC" on Justia Law

Darbun filed suit against Mission for breach of a lease agreement, seeking damages and specific performance. In the published portion of the opinion, the court held that, in cases involving mixed issues of equity and law, a trial court may not act as a factfinder on issues it specifically reserves for jury determination. Here, in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), the trial court improperly transformed its equitable finding of unenforceability as to specific performance into a finding of unenforceability as to the legal issue of damages. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Darbun Enter., Inc. v. San Fernando Comm. Hosp." on Justia Law

Shortly after plaintiff John Ross signed a contract to sell his home, he learned of contamination on his property as a result of a leak that previously existed in an underground oil storage tank located on a neighboring property. The prospective purchaser then cancelled the contract, and plaintiffs commenced suit against the current and former owners of the neighboring property, and their respective insurers. After the insurers remediated the contamination on the property, the lawsuit proceeded on the claims for damages against all defendants on theories of negligence, strict liability, private nuisance and trespass, as well as violations of the Spill Compensation and Control Act. In this appeal, the issue presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed, and whether plaintiffs could maintain claims as third-party beneficiaries against the insurers which provided coverage to the former owner of the neighboring property where the underground storage tank was located. The Court found no basis for the claims of private nuisance or trespass against the homeowner defendants because there was no proof of negligence, recklessness, intentional conduct, or the conduct of an abnormally dangerous activity, by these parties. Additionally, the Court declined to expand these causes of action to impose strict liability upon defendants. Plaintiffs could not proceed with a direct claim against the defendant insurers for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained in the insurance contracts because they did not hold an assignment of rights from the named insured, and there was no evidence that the named insured or her insurers agreed to recognize plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries of the insurance contracts. View "Ross v. Lowitz" on Justia Law

Burlington purchased more than $8 million worth of cast vinyl film products from Ritrama to manufacture graphic decals for customers in the recreational vehicle (RV) industry. No later than early 2008, Burlington reported to Ritrama that RV owners were experiencing issues with the graphics. In September, 2008, Burlington sent Ritrama a spreadsheet detailing three claims for monetary damages based on the product failures, which totaled $53,219.37. The companies discussed settlement. In early 2009, Ritrama purchased a commercial general liability insurance policy from Gerling that provided coverage for claims made between March 31, 2009, and March 31, 2010. The policy did not define “claim.” On July 17, 2009, Ritrama advised its insurance agent of its issues with Burlington. The insurance agent sent a "notice of occurrence" to Gerling. Ritrama claims that the notice was not an acknowledgment of a claim, but merely a notification of a "customer having problems." Ritrama failed to meet Burlington's demands. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Gerling. Burlington demanded money in 2008 and, before inception of the Policy, Ritrama attempted to settle existing and future claims for damages based on the RV adhesive issues. Although these communications did not involve an attorney or expressly refer to litigation, Burlington clearly demanded compensation. View "Ritrama, Inc. v. HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Schmidts operate a farm Worthington, Minnesota. Madison hosted a sleepover party at the family farm to celebrate her twelfth birthday. A guest, 10-year old Alyssa, was driving the Schmidts' ATV around the property when the ATV struck a tree. Alyssa died as a result of the accident. The Schmidts tendered defense of a wrongful death action to Grinnell under their farm policy, which provided $300,000 in coverage. Grinnell initially informed the Schmidts the policy appeared to provide coverage, but reserved its right to dispute coverage and sought a declaratory judgment. The wrongful death action settled for $462,500. Both parties agree the coverage dispute turns on whether Jerome or Kelly – the named insureds – gave Alyssa "express permission" to operate the ATV within the meaning of an exclusion contained in the Select Recreational Vehicle Limited Liability Coverage endorsement. The Eight Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Schmidts. While the Schmidts observed the girls on the ATV and did not object, Alyssa never “expressly” sought permission, so her conduct did not fall within the exclusion. View "Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

The Richers filed for bankruptcy. Morehead, who had invested in commercial real estate owned by a trust controlled by Richer, filed an unsecured claim for $945,000 in the proceeding. The Richers filed an adversary action claiming that Morehead’s only lawful interest in the property was to receive a share of the net proceeds of the property if and when it was sold. The bankruptcy judge, the district court, and the Seventh Circuit upheld Morehead’s claim. The 2005 “Equity Participation Agreement” provided no security for Morehead, but did give him “the sole and exclusive option to convert his Participation Interest to a Demand Note payable within one hundred eighty (180) days of conversion.” Four years later, Morehead sent Richer by certified mail, a letter purporting to convert Morehead’s participation interest to a demand note for $700,000 (plus interest), effective the day after the letter was mailed, November 25, 2009—the anniversary date. The court rejected an argument that the letter had to be mailed or otherwise communicated to them on November 25, the anniversary date, neither before nor after. The Agreement provides that “the Conversion Option is exercised on the … anniversary date,” not that communication must occur on that date. View "Richer v. Morehead" on Justia Law