Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The underlying federal action involved a dispute between General Motors LLC (GM), a franchisor and Chevrolet car manufacturer, and Beck Chevrolet Co., Inc., an automobile dealership with a Chevrolet franchise. Beck sued GM alleging violations of the Dealer Act. The district court ruled against Beck on its claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that resolution depended on unsettled New York law and certified two questions requiring the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of two provisions of New York’s Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act. The Court of Appeals answered as follows: (1) the use of a franchisor sales performance standard that relies on statewide data and some local variances but fails to account for local brand popularity to determine compliance with a franchise agreement is unlawful under the Dealer Act; and (2) a franchisor’s unilateral change of a dealer’s geographic sales area does not constitute a prohibited modification to the franchise. View "Beck Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. General Motors LLC" on Justia Law

Knauf Insulation, the Delaware subsidiary of a German corporation, has its principal place of business in Indiana. SBI was a distributor of Knauf’s insulation; the Dowds are SBI’s principals. For many years SBI was delinquent in paying Knauf. By 2012, when Knauf filed suit , SBI owed Knauf more than $3.5 million. The district judge granted Knauf summary judgment with interest on the debt. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the Dowds’ 2003 guaranty, of SBI’s debts to Knauf did not “intend or contemplate being sued by Knauf in Indiana on its much larger claims against SBI, arising more than four years later,” and that despite the forum‐ selection clause “SBI, an out‐of‐state distributor doing business in the southeast, did not have such minimum contacts with Indiana as would subject it to Indiana’s jurisdiction.” The size disparity between the firms did not render the guaranties unconscionable or unenforceable. The statute of limitations barred a purported counter-claim. View "Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. S. Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2013, CNE Direct, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation that buys and resells bulk technological components, reached an agreement with the now-defunct Asset Recovery Associates Worldwide, Ltd. to purchase phone parts manufactured by BlackBerry Corporation. When Asset failed to make the parts available at the agreed-upon price, CNE sued Asset and also sought to hold BlackBerry itself liable, asserting that Asset was cloaked with both actual and apparent authority to bind BlackBerry in contract. The district court entered default judgment against Asset and summary judgment in favor of BlackBerry. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that no fact finder could rationally conclude that BlackBerry gave CNE reason to think that Asset was acting as BlackBerry’s agent in negotiating the price of the 2013 deal. View "CNE Direct, Inc. v. Blackberry Corp." on Justia Law

Trafon Group, Inc., a Puerto Rico-based wholesale food distributor, filed suit in the District of Puerto Rico alleging that Butterball LLC breached an exclusive distribution agreement in violation of Puerto Rico’s Law 75 of June 24, 1964. Trafon moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining Butterball from further impairing the alleged exclusive distribution agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Trafon’s claim was barred under Law 75’s three-year statute of limitations. The district court then dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Trafon’s action was time-barred under Law 75. View "Trafon Group, Inc. v. Butterball LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Clarence Furuya and Lona Furuya, filed the underlying suit against Association of Apartment Owners of Pacific Monarch, Inc. (AOAO) raising issues related to their interests in an apartment unit located at the Pacific Monarch Condominium (Pacific Monarch) and 106 parking stalls appurtenant to the unit. The circuit court concluded that there was no enforceable contract between AOAO and the Furuyas for the purchase of the leased fee interests associated with the unit and the parking stalls. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) ultimately affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Furuyas failed to demonstrate error in the circuit court’s decision; and (2) the circuit court did not err in rejecting the Furuyas’ related claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and ultra vires act. View "Furuya v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Pacific Monarch, Inc." on Justia Law

James Cherry appealed the grant of summary judgment entered against him and in favor of Pinson Termite and Pest Control, LLC, and Jerry Pinson. In 2011, Cherry purchased a home. The sales contract required the seller to provide a "Wood Infestation Inspection Report (WIIR)." A termite-services contract with Pinson Termite ("termite bond") was transferrable from the seller to Cherry, but it was disputed whether the bond actually transferred to Cherry. In late 2011, Cherry began remodeling him home when he discovered extensive termite damage. A State inspector confirmed the damage and sent Pinson a letter that it had "observed findings of subterranean termite damage" that were not mentioned on the WIIR and that, although the WIIR "indicates the structure was treated by your company, ... we did not observe all mechanics of subterranean control work." The State inspector monitored Pinson's re-treatment of the house. At about the same time, Cherry and Pinson signed a contract for an extension of the termite bond. Shortly thereafter, cherry hired an attorney, who sent Pinson a letter offering to settle his claim for the re-treatment of his home. The State inspector sent Cherry a letter advising that it had supervised Pinson's re-treatment of the house and that if Cherry had any question he should contact the State within 10 days of receiving the letter. If he did not contact, the letter stated the State would "assume that the matter has been resolved." There was no record of any further contact between Cherry and State inspector. Approximately one year after the State letter, Cherry sued Pinson Pest, and Pinson alleging fraud; negligence; negligent hiring, training, and supervision; and breach of contract and seeking "equitable relief pursuant to the 'made whole' doctrine." When summary judgment was granted in favor of Pinson, Cherry appealed arguing that the trial court erred. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court agreed that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Pinson, reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cherry v. Pinson Termite & Pest Control, LLC" on Justia Law

The United States Defense Threat Reduction Agency sought a prime contractor to provide event-planning services. Plaintiffs offered their services as joint subcontractors to Navar, Inc. Plaintiffs and Navar entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and a Teaming Agreement, which provided that if Navar were awarded a prime contract then it would negotiate in good faith with Plaintiffs. The Defense Agency awarded Navar a five-year prime contract, but Navar did not extend subcontracts to either Plaintiff. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sued Navar, asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and trade secret misappropriation. A jury found (1) Navar had breached the NDA and Teaming Agreement, and (2) Navar misappropriated one plaintiff’s trade secretes under the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The trial court set aside the verdict on breach of the Teaming Agreement and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $1.25 million. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) Navar could not be found liable for breach of contract because nothing in the Act or the NDA required Navar to use Plaintiffs as subcontractors; and (2) the trial court did not err in finding the Teaming Agreement was unenforceable as a binding contract. View "Navar, Inc. v. Federal Bus. Council" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Patterson and Breedlove filed suit against Mortgage Systems, seeking to enforce a contract between Patterson and CitiMortgage for the sale of Breedlove’s home to Patterson for a bargain basement price. CitiMortgage contends that the sale price stated in its offer letter to Patterson was an obvious clerical error and that the contract should be rescinded for that reason. Because of the clerical error, the letter actually said that CitiMortgage wanted a net payout amount of $113,968.45, instead of the “corrected” net payout amount was $423,940. Because that letter did not lead to formation of a valid contract based on CitiMortgage's unilateral mistake that plaintiffs knew or should have known about, CitiMortgage did not have any duty not to foreclose on the property. Therefore, the wrongful foreclosure claim fails and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for CitiMortgage and Mortgage Systems. View "Patterson v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

BNY appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Morgan Stanley, arguing that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Morgan Stanley was not contractually obliged to repurchase a mortgage loan allegedly issued in breach of a contract representation because (1) the Trustee’s duty to give “notice to cure” within three business days of becoming aware of a material breach was a condition precedent to the seller’s repurchase obligation, and (2) that condition was not performed within the specified three days, but two to four weeks later. The court concluded that the contract at issue did not require notice to cure as a condition precedent to Morgan Stanley remedying breach where the phrase “notice to cure” does not appear in the contract. In this case, the contract contains distinct provisions for giving notice of breach and making request for cure, neither of which is cast in the express language of condition. Therefore, the request for cure is not a condition precedent to Morgan Stanley’s remedy obligations, and the timeliness of a request for cure, as well as of a notice of breach, is properly construed as a promise and reviewed for substantial performance. The court also concluded that the notice of breach and request for cure in this case cannot be held untimely as a matter of law, particularly when reviewed for substantial performance. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bank of New York Mellon Trust v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage" on Justia Law

Defendants were business entities that organize physically challenging obstacle course events in locations throughout the United States. The four named Plaintiffs registered to participate in one of those events. Plaintiffs filed suit in Massachusetts superior court alleging that they were unable to participate in the event because of a second change of location and that Defendants refused to refund Plaintiffs’ registration fees. Plaintiffs sought relief on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that removal was permitted under the Class Action Fairness Act because the matter in controversy exceeded $5 million. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court arguing that Defendant failed to show that over $5 million was in controversy. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court. The district court then dismissed the case and compelled mediation and arbitration of the dispute. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding that Defendants met their burden of showing that over $5 million was in controversy in this matter. Remanded with instructions to remand the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction. View "Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc." on Justia Law