Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Upon an investigation by the Maine Bureau of Insurance (Bureau) and the Maine Attorney General's Office (AG's Office) into the questionable business practices of Bankers Life and Casualty Company (Company), Appellant, the Company's employee, accepted responsibility for his own unlawful conduct. In exchange, several state officials (Appellees) representing the Bureau and the AG's Office agreed to take no further action against Appellant. Appellees, however, subsequently agreed to Appellant's termination in a separate agreement with the Company. Appellant filed a complaint against Appellees, asserting violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985(2). The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding (1) Appellees were entitled to absolute immunity on the section 1983 claim, and (2) Appellant failed to plead a plausible section 1985(2) claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Appellees met their burden in establishing they were entitled to absolute immunity for entering into the consent agreements with Appellant and the Company, and the district court did not err by refusing to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel on Appellees' immunity defense; and (2) because the complaint failed to allege any racial or class-based invidiously discriminatory animus underlying Appellees' actions, the district court properly dismissed Appellant's section 1985(2) claim. View "Knowlton v. Shaw" on Justia Law

This appeal involved litigation between Coverall North America, Inc. and its franchisees. Proceeding under federal diversity jurisdiction, the franchisees asserted a variety of state-law claims against Coverall. Which of the various plaintiffs were subject to the arbitration provisions of the Franchise Agreement was at issue in this appeal. Appellees were a subgroup of Plaintiffs who became Coverall franchisees by signing consent to transfer agreements, which by reference incorporated under franchise agreements that contained arbitration clauses. The district court determined that Appellees did not have to arbitrate their claims against Coverall because they did not have adequate notice of the arbitration clauses contained in the franchise agreements. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court erred because (1) Massachusetts law, which governed this dispute, did not impose any such special notice requirement upon these commercial contractual provisions; and (2) in any event, any special notice requirement would be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Awuah v. Coverall N.A., Inc. " on Justia Law

Several years ago, Plaintiffs entered into a fifteen-year lease with Defendant's predecessor in interest (Miller). The lease included a purchase option. After Defendant refused to allow Plaintiffs to exercise the purchase option on the ground that they were in default on their obligations under the lease, Plaintiffs instituted this action, demanding specific performance or damages. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered specific performance of the purchase option, determining that Miller had waived a provision which prohibited Plaintiffs from subleasing without prior written permission and that all alleged defaults were inconsequential and immaterial. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that summary judgment for Plaintiffs was proper, where (1) the district court correctly found that Miller waived the requirement that Plaintiffs obtain written permission before subleasing any portion of the premises; and (2) the district court properly found that Defendant had failed to present evidence of how alleged violations the lease provision requiring them to comply with state and municipal laws harmed her or Miller. View "Bachorz v. Miller-Forslund" on Justia Law

House of Flavors purchased equipment from Tetra and executed an agreement with Tetra to fund its installation. Under the agreement, Tetra paid for the installation, House of Flavors then transferred ownership of the installed system to Tetra, and Tetra leased the system back to House of Flavors. After House of Flavors began monthly lease payments, it sought to exercise the buy back option a year early. Notwithstanding the twelve percent estimate it quoted earlier, Tetra quoted a purchase price around forty percent of the equipment and installation costs. House of Flavors filed suit in federal district court, where it prevailed on its claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed but remanded the case to reconsider the balance due between the parties. On remand, the judge recalculated the balance due and determined that, rather than owing House of Flavors, Tetra was in fact due $156,399. The First Circuit dismissed House of Flavors' appeal, holding (1) the attack on the recalculated figure was foreclosed by a jurisdictional objection, as the appeal was untimely; and (2) the appeal was jurisdictionally timely as to the district court's refusal to award attorneys' fees under a Utah statute, but the denial of attorneys' fees was affirmed. View "House of Flavors, Inc. v. TFG-Michigan, L.P." on Justia Law

In this appeal, Greater Omaha Packing Company (GOPAC) asked the First Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate a jury's unanimous finding that GOPAC supplied Fairbank Reconstruction Corporation with E. coli-tainted beef, which Fairbank then packaged and shipped to two supermarkets in Maine, resulting in two women who bought meat there becoming seriously ill. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis upon which to upset the jury's verdict, as (1) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that GOPAC's meat was contaminated and that such meat was included in the packages the two women purchased; and (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a video deposition of GOPAC's former expert witness. View "Fairbank Reconstruction v. Greater Omaha Packing Co." on Justia Law

This dispute between The Saint Consulting Group (Saint) and its liability insurer, Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company (Endurance), stemmed from Endurance's refusal to defend Saint in a lawsuit against Saint in the Northern District of Illinois. The district court dismissed Saint's lawsuit against Endurance based on an exclusion in the policy that stated explicitly that the policy does not apply to any claim based upon or arising out of any actual or alleged violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or any similar provision of any state law. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the second complaint alleged that Saint engaged in an anti-competitive scheme the exclusion was triggered; and (2) the policy did not cover the negligent spoliation claim in the first complaint. View "Saint Consulting Group, Inc. v. Endurance Am. Specialty, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was severely injured in a workplace accident and sued Trail King, the custom manufacturer of the trailer involved in the accident. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury's finding that Defendant had not been negligent nor in breach of any warranty. In the trial court in that diversity case, Plaintiffs belatedly attempted to amend their complaint to add another claim, one under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A for unfair and deceptive trade practices. The trial judge denied the motion, finding the effort to amend untimely. Plaintiffs did not appeal this denial in their earlier appeal. This case concerned whether Plaintiffs may now maintain an independent suit for the ch. 93A claims against Trail King. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding that the doctrine of claim preclusion applied. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that ch. 93A, 9(8) provides an exception to the normal rules of res judicata. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that under the facts of this case, Plaintiffs may not now bring this ch. 93A claim because of the failure to appeal from the denial of the motion to amend. View "Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

In this breach of contract case, defendant DHL Express (USA), Inc. ("DHL") appealed from a judgment on the pleadings for plaintiff C.A. Acquisition Newco LLC ("Newco"). The district court concluded that DHL had terminated the contract and awarded the $50,000 per month provided for in the contract in the event of a "termination." In total, the court entered final judgment for Newco in the amount of $413,333 plus interest. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the contract was ambiguous as to whether DHL's actions constituted a termination under the contract. Remanded. View "C. A. Acquisition Newco, LLC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc." on Justia Law

A pipeline owner and a natural gas supplier entered into a contract for the transportation of the supplier's natural gas. The parties later became embroiled in a dispute and submitted their dispute to binding arbitration. After the arbitrators issued a decision largely favorable to the supplier, the pipeline owner sought to vacate the decision in the district court. The district court entered judgment in favor of the supplier. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the arbitration panel's decision to make the pipeline owner by for the lateral costs was not in manifest disregard of the law; and (2) the panel did not compromise on the matter of the destination-end heating costs, which it imposed on the supplier for the future but declined to make the ruling retroactive; and (3) even assuming that the arbitrators committed misconduct by considering in their decision two documents among the three that the panel attached to its written decision, the misconduct could not have been prejudicial. View "Bangor Gas Co., LLC v. H.Q. Energy Servs. (U.S.) Inc." on Justia Law

Milford-Bennington Railroad Company, Inc. (MBR) appealed an award of summary judgment to Pan Am Railways, Inc., Boston and Maine Corporation, and Springfield Terminal Railway Company (collectively, "Pan Am") in a dispute arising from Pan Am's actions under a contract to provide MBR with access to Pan Am's railroad tracks. The district court held that Pan Am did not breach its duty of good faith and fair dealing when it exercised its contractual right to exclude an MBR employee from its trackage for violating a safety rule. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even if Pan Am was bound by a duty of good faith and fair dealing when exercising its right to exclude the employee from its trackage, Pan Am did not breach that duty. View "Milford-Bennington R.R. Co. v. Pan Am Rys., Inc." on Justia Law