Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a wood manufacturer, alleging that wood he bought for a fence at his home was not properly pressure-treated and that it prematurely rotted. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ala. Code 8-19-5(5), (7), and for breach of express warranty. The court held that where a conflict exists between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which authorizes class actions including for consumer claims of this kind, and the ADTPA, which creates a private right of action but forbids private class actions, Rule 23 controls. The court also concluded that Alabama law allows a consumer to recover for breach of an express warranty, even in the absence of privity, in some circumstances. In this case, the court held that the complaint adequately alleges the required circumstances and thus states an express warranty claim on which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns the District's construction of an ambitious project to impound water until it can be cleaned up and released safely: the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). The United States and the State of Illinois jointly filed suit, under sections 301 and 309 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1319, seeking an order that the District improve the TARP’s performance, accelerate its completion date, and do more to contain and mitigate overflows in the interim. The Alliance was permitted to intervene. The district court entered a proposed consent decree that accompanied the complaint and rejected the Alliance's protest of the proposal. The district judge also concluded that the settlement binds the Alliance. The Alliance appealed, arguing that it cannot be bound by the consent decree - essentially a contract - to which it did not agree. The court concluded that the consent decree that the district court has approved is reasonable in light of the current infrastructure, the costs of doing things differently (no one proposes to build a new sewer system or redo the Deep Tunnel project), and the limits of knowledge about what will happen when the system is completed. Because the decree is the outcome of diligent prosecution, it binds would-be private litigants such as the Alliance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against MBCC, alleging claims arising from MBCC's failure to timely release a lien placed on her residence after she satisfied her underlying debt obligation. The district court granted summary judgment to MBCC and plaintiff appealed. The court rejected plaintiff's claims for breach of contract; slander of title; violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), Va. Code 59.1-200; violation of Virginia Code 55-66.3; and declaratory judgment. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. The court noted the substandard nature of MBCC’s conduct in releasing the lien on plaintiff’s home. While the various statutory barriers cited negate plaintiff’s claims, had she acted diligently she may have had viable claims at least as to breach of contract and Va. Code 55-66.3(B). Finally, the court stated that MBCC would be well served to review its business practices to forestall such claims in future cases. View "Poindexter v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp." on Justia Law

Ash Park, LLC entered into a one-party listing contract with Re/Max Select, LLC providing that Ash Park shall pay a broker’s commission to Re/Max if Ash Park enters into an “enforceable contract” for the sale of a parcel of vacant land. Ash Park entered into a contract for the sale of the land with Alexander & Bishop, LLC, but Alexander & Bishop later breached the purchase contract, and the sale of the land was never consummated. The circuit court declared that Ash Park owed no broker’s commission to Re/Max and ordered Re/Max’s broker lien discharged from the property. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the purchase contract between Ash Park and Alexander & Bishop constituted an “enforceable contract” within the meaning of the listing contract between Ash Park and Re/Max, and therefore, Re/Max was entitled to a broker’s commission even though Alexander & Bishop breached the purchase contract and the sale was never consummated. View "Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd." on Justia Law

Graham sold insurance for American Family from 1988 until 2011. In 1996, they entered into an Agent Agreement. In 2010, following a customer complaint, American Family concluded that Graham had increased coverage and added endorsements without customer permission, increasing premiums; improperly applied multi-vehicle discounts to accounts with only one car; and changed vehicle-rating symbols used to assign risk and determine appropriate premiums for automobile insurance. American Famly terminated the Agreement. Weeks later, Graham formed an independent agency and sent letters to approximately 1,500 of his former American Family customers telling them he no longer represented American Family and had signed an agreement not to solicit or induce former customers for one year, but was not prohibited from serving needs not covered by American Family. Graham stated he now represented over 50 companies and could offer clients “more choices, expanded coverage, and excellent rates” that might be “better suited for your needs.” If a former customer contacted Graham, the customer was asked to sign a “non-inducement form.” American Family sued. Graham counterclaimed for wrongful termination. American Family asserted that Graham’s conduct qualified as “dishonest,” obviating the need for notice under the Agreement. The Eighth Circuit affirmed enforcement of a stipulated damages clause in the Agreement, in favor of American Family. View "Am. Family Mut, Ins. Co. v. Graham" on Justia Law

Comar filed suit against vessel-owning LLCs after the LLCs decided to terminate an agreement with Comar in which Comar would manage the vessels on behalf of the LLCs. JPMorgan and Allegiance provided the financing for the vessel purchases and intervened to defend their preferred ship mortgages. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JPMorgan and Allegiance. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that breach of the management agreements did not give rise to maritime liens; the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Allegiance and JPMorgan; and the court did not reach whether the district court’s alternate holding that Comar was a joint venturer and therefore foreclosed from asserting a maritime lien was erroneous. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit reversible error in concluding that the termination-fee provision is unenforceable; the district court’s award to Comar is plausible in light of the record and not clearly erroneous; the district court did not clearly err in finding that Comar acted in bad faith when arresting the vessels and did not rely on legal advice in good faith; the district court did not clearly err in denying lost-profit and lost-equity damages; and the court concluded that the district court did not commit any other errors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Comar Marine, Corp. v. Raider Marine Logistics" on Justia Law

In "Vinings Bank v. Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC," (759 SE2d 886 (2014)), the Court of Appeals affirmed, among other rulings, the trial court’s determination that Vinings Bank was not entitled to summary judgment with regard to a counterclaim for conversion brought against the Bank by Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC ("B&G"). This case stemmed from a defaulted $1.4 million business loan. The bank made the loan to Wagner Enterprises, Inc., which used as collateral, a security interest in all of its accounts and accounts receivable, including Wagner's contract to provide drywall services for general contractor B&G. Wagner defaulted on the loan, and the Bank filed suit against B&G seeking to collect on Wagner's accounts receivable. B&G counterclaimed for conversion, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The bank appealed the denial of its motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. In affirming the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeals did not consider whether B&G had any right to assert a counterclaim against the bank for conversion of funds due to Wagner's subcontractors. The Supreme Court found that B&G had no direct relationship with the Bank, B&G was not, itself, a subcontractor of Wagner entitled to any of Wagner's funds, B&G did not have direct contractual relationships with any of Wagner's subcontractors, and B&G had no fiduciary relationship with any of Wagner's subcontractors. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Wagner or Wagner's affected subcontractors assigned B&G any of their rights. "Therefore, even if we assume without deciding that funds in [Wagner's] account were held in a constructive trust for the benefit of [Wagner's] subcontractors, B&G is not the party to assert those rights and had no standing to do so." View "Vinings Bank v. Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC" on Justia Law

Wild is the sole member of Braveheart, LLC, which is one of two members of another limited liability company, Catalyst. In 2008, Catalyst borrowed $500,000 from Laurus. Wild signed a personal guaranty as security for Catalyst's loan. The guaranty did not expressly extend Wild's promise to Laurus's "successors and assigns," but it also did not expressly prohibit assignment of the guaranty. Years later, Laurus assigned the Catalyst promissory note to Avnet as part of a forbearance agreement on a debt Laurus owed to Avnet. An attorney for Avnet contacted Catalyst demanding payment of the $500,000 loan plus interest. When Catalyst did not make any payments, Avnet's attorney contacted Wild and demanded that he honor his personal guaranty. When Wild did not honor the guaranty, Avnet filed suit. Catalyst did not respond; a $770,065.80 default judgment entered against the company. Wild contended his guaranty was a "special guaranty" (directed solely to a specific creditor) rather than a "general guaranty" and that a special guaranty could not be assigned under Iowa law. After examining Iowa law, the district court determined the Iowa Supreme Court would allow enforcement of Wild's personal guaranty by Avnet. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Avnet, Inc. v. Wild" on Justia Law

Prentice Delon Hyler sought health care services from Action Chiropractic Clinic, LLC (Plaintiff) after she was injured in an automobile accident. Hyler executed an “Assignment of Rights” to Plaintiff for medical benefits payable to Hyler by Erie Insurance Exchange. Erie was the automobile liability insurance provider for the opposing driver involved in the accident. Erie and Hyler entered into a settlement agreement providing that Erie would pay Hyler $8,510 for claims relating to the accident. Plaintiff sued both Erie and Hyler seeking to recover the $5,010 it was owed from Hyler. The trial court granted Erie’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Assignment of Rights was not a valid assignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the assignment in this case was ineffective. View "Action Chiropractic Clinic, LLC v. Hyler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint claiming to have rendered to Defendants financial advisory services for nine project groups of investment opportunities. Plaintiff sought recovery based on theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, contending that the claims for compensation for the advisory services Plaintiff allegedly performed were subject to the statute of frauds. Supreme Court dismissed the amended complaint in part. The Appellate Division modified by granting the motion in its entirety and dismissing the amended complaint. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order by denying those parts of Defendants’ motion seeking to dismiss the amended complaint with respect to five of the nine project groups, holding that the statute of frauds does not bar the causes of action with respect to those groups. View "JF Capital Advisors, LLC v. Lightstone Group, LLC" on Justia Law