Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued Defendant for specific performance of Plaintiff’s option to purchase a ranch owned by Defendant. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that Plaintiff owed him rent. After a trial, the circuit court (1) denied Plaintiff’s request for specific performance, concluding that Plaintiff had not performed all the conditions precedent on his part; and (2) concluded that the parties had an implied or express contract requiring Plaintiff to pay Defendant rent. The Supreme Court (1) held that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding Plaintiff was the party who was materially at fault for the failure of the conditions and in therefore denying specific performance, but because the record did not reflect that the court considered whether specific performance was appropriate under the exception set forth in S.D. Codified Laws 21-9-5, the case was remanded for reconsideration of specific performance under this exception; and (2) the circuit court erred in concluding that either an express or an implied contract required Plaintiff to pay rent. View "Humble v. Wyant" on Justia Law

ICI Homes, Inc. (ICI) had a general liability insurance policy with General Fidelity Insurance Company. In 2007, Katherine Ferrin, the owner of a residence constructed by ICI, was injured while using stairs installed by Custom Cutting, Inc. Ferrin filed suit against ICI. ICI, in turn, sought indemnification from Custom Cutting. The parties agreed to a $1.6 million settlement of Ferrin’s claim. ICI accepted $1 million from Custom Cutting’s insurer to settle its indemnification claim, which it paid to Ferrin. ICI and General Fidelity then claimed the other was responsible for paying Ferrin the remaining $600,000. Both parties paid $300,000 to Ferrin to settle Ferrin’s claim. ICI then filed suit against General Fidelity seeking return of the $300,000 ICI paid above the $1 million indemnification payment. General Fidelity counterclaimed seeking return of the $300,000 it had paid to Ferrin. The district court entered judgment for General Fidelity. The court of appeals certified two questions to the Supreme Court for resolution. The Supreme Court answered (1) the General Fidelity policy allowed ICI to apply indemnification payments received from Custom Cutting’s insurer towards satisfaction of its $1 million self-insured retention; and (2) the transfer of rights provision in the policy did not abrogate the made whole doctrine. View "Intervest Constr. of Jax, Inc. v Gen. Fidelity Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant, the president of Moving America of CT, Inc., entered into a contract with Plaintiff, Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Company, Inc., on Moving America’s behalf. After Moving America dissolved, Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant in his individual capacity pursuant to an alleged individual guarantee in the contract, claiming that Defendant was individually liable to Plaintiff for the balance remaining unpaid on Moving America’s account. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that the contract was ambiguous as to whether Defendant was a party to the contract in his individual capacity, and therefore, the contract was unenforceable pursuant to the statute of frauds. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the contract unambiguously identified Defendant as a party in his individual capacity and imposed a primary obligation, rather than a collateral one, on Defendant to provide full performance, thus rendering the statute of frauds inapplicable. Remanded. View "Yellow Book Sales & Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Valle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her employer (Defendant) signed a document regarding the terms of Plaintiff’s employment. The parties agreed the document would cover "a thirty-six month period." After Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment before the term expired, Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that she and Defendant had entered into a letter agreement for a fixed term of employment of thirty-six months and that Defendant violated the agreement. The trial court concluded that, on its face, the letter agreement constituted a contract for a definite term and that Defendant breached the agreement when it terminated Plaintiff’s employment without good cause before the term expired. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the letter agreement was ambiguous. Specifically, the language of the letter agreement could reasonably be interpreted as evincing either an intent to create a definite term of employment or an intent to set the terms and conditions of an at-will employment contract, and therefore, the trial court should have considered extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties. Remanded for a new trial. View "Cruz v. Visual Perceptions, LLC" on Justia Law

Crewzers was awarded blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) with the Forest Service to provide buses that transport fire crews to wildfires and other disaster areas in regional and national wilderness zones and to provide flame retardant tents to disaster areas. Both BPAs established dispatch priority lists within geographic zones. When an emergency arose, the Service would to submit an order for the highest-ranked (lowest-priced) resource available on the priority. BPAs are frameworks for future contracts and state that “If a Contractor cannot be reached or is not able to meet the time and date needed, the dispatcher may proceed with contacting the next resource on the dispatch priority list.” The Service has discretion to deviate from priority lists as needed and did not make any guarantee that it would actually place orders under the BPAs. The BPAs required Crewzers to accept orders only if “willing and able.” The Service terminated the Crewzers BPA for buses after Crewzers allegedly responded with unauthorized vehicles and attempted to bill at a higher-than-authorized rate and later terminated its BPA for tents after Crewzers allegedly provided tents that did not meet specifications or failed to deliver on time. Crewzers sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to damages or to reinstatement of the BPAs. The Claims Court dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the BPAs were not binding contracts for purposes of invoking Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. 1491(a)) jurisdiction. View "Crewzers Fire Crew Transp., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

An employee benefits plan sued a medical college that provides patient care in clinics and hospitals and an affiliated children’s hospital, with which it had provider agreements, alleging ERISA violations and breach of contract under Wisconsin law. The suit was based on the plan’s determination that an employee’s child was not covered by the plan and the hospital’s denial of its subsequent request that the hospital refund about $1.7 million the plan had already paid on behalf of the child. The plan makes no mention of refunds. The district court dismissed and awarded attorneys’ fees to the hospital as a sanction for having filed frivolous claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the ERISA claims but reversed dismissal of the breach of contract claim, rejecting the district court’s finding of preemption, and imposition of sanctions. On remand of the contract claim, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the hospital, having been paid in full by the plan, has no possible claim against Medicaid, that the plan took 11 months to determine that the child was not a beneficiary, and that the hospital has not been unjustly enriched. View "Kolbe & Kolbe Health & Welfare Benefit Plan v. Med. Coll. of WI" on Justia Law

This case arose from the collapse of a real estate transaction. The ART entities filed suit alleging that Clapper defrauded them by representing that "there was no title problems," and seeking a declaratory judgment that they "properly terminated" the deal. The Clapper entities countersued, alleging that the ART entities breached the agreement by purporting to terminate the deal. In this appeal, the court held that the ART entities' decision not to cross-appeal the jury's fraud findings in the first district proceeding prevented them from raising the same rejected fraud claims in the second district court proceeding. Because the contribution amounts overlap, and because the parties neither identified language in the agreement nor an explanation from the district court supporting this double counting of damages, the court held that the district court's decision to combine the amounts was in error. Accordingly, the court vacated the award of combined contribution amounts and remanded for further proceedings. The court addressed remaining claims and affirmed the district court's judgment in all other respects. View "American Midwest, Inc., et al. v. Clapper, et al." on Justia Law

This litigation arose out of the failure of WaMu and the assumption of WaMu's assets and liabilities by Chase from the FDIC, acting in its capacity as WaMu's receiver. On appeal, the FDIC and Chase challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hillside. The district court concluded that Hillside, which owned premises leased by WaMu before the financial crisis, had third-party standing to enforce the alleged assignment of WaMu's real estate lease to Chase under a purchase agreement between the FDIC and Chase, even though the FDIC validly repudiated the lease under section 212(e) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 12 U.S.C. 1821(e), and the parties to the purchase agreement asserted that it did not in fact assign the lease. The court held that Hillside lacked prudential standing to litigate whether WaMu's liabilities were assigned to Chase under the agreement because it was neither a contracting party nor a third-party beneficiary under the agreement. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. View "Hillside Metro Associates, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2001 KBR agreed to provide the Army with logistics support services during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Individual task orders required KBR to install, operate and maintain dining services near Mosul, Iraq on a cost-plus-award-fee basis. KBR selected ABC, a subcontractor, to build a prefabricated metal dining facility and to provide dining services for a camp population of 2,573. In June 2004, the Army ordered KBR to stop construction of the metal facility and begin construction of a reinforced concrete facility for an estimated 2,573 to 6,200+ persons. Instead of requesting bids for the new work, KBR kept ABC as the subcontractor due to the urgency of the request. ABC submitted a new proposal with a total monthly cost about triple the monthly cost initially quoted. ABC attributed the increased costs to additional labor and equipment to serve a larger population and to a drastic increase in the cost of labor and a severe shortage of staff willing to work in Iraq. Due to a calculation error, it was determined that ABC’s proposal was reasonable. KBR’s management reviewed and approved a change order, embodying ABC’s proposal. In 2005 the subcontract ended and title to the dining facility passed to the Army. In 2007, the Defense Contract Auditing Agency suspended payment of certain costs paid by KBR to ABC pursuant to the change order. KBR prepared a new price justification for the concrete dining facility and ultimately filed suit, seeking recovery of the $12,529,504 in costs disapproved for reimbursement. The Claims Court awarded $6,779,762. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Kellogg Brown & Root Servs. v. United States" on Justia Law

Frank Sorichetti contracted Respondent to buy his property. Sorichetti reneged so Respondent sued and recorded a lis pendens against the property. Due to misinformation about the lis pendens, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. loaned Sorichetti money secured by deeds of trust against the property. Sorichetti defaulted and Countrywide initiated foreclosure. Respondent sued Countrywide. Countrywide argued that it was entitled to equitable subrogation in amount of the sum that it had paid off in prior loans against the property. Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court for a second time. In Zhang II, the Court reversed and remanded the case, determining that the district court erred in concluding that Respondent’s lis pendens should not be given priority over Countrywide’s deeds of trust. On remand, Countrywide asked for a decision on its equitable subrogation claim, which the district court declined to give because it was “not given jurisdiction to do so by the Supreme Court.” The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of Respondent and remanded with instructions to decide Countrywide’s equitable subrogation claim, holding that the district court erred in failing to resolve the equitable subrogation issue. View "Recontrust Co., N.A. v. Zhang" on Justia Law