Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit against ISPC, alleging that ISPC violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1635, 1637, by failing to disclose examples of minimum payments and the maximum repayment period, as well as failing to properly delay performance to allow plaintiffs to rescind the contract. The court concluded that ISPC did not take the requisite interest in plaintiffs’ primary residence to trigger the TILA protections on which plaintiffs rely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Lankhorst v. Indep. Savings Plan Co." on Justia Law

Aggregate Construction, Inc., appealed the grant of summary judgment which declared certain leases of shop and office property to Aggregate were terminated on December 31, 2011, and dismissing Aggregate's counterclaims against Robin and Kathleen Funke. The Supreme Court concluded after review that the district court did not err in construing the leases to effectuate a termination on December 31, 2011, and in dismissing Aggregate's counterclaims. View "Funke v. Aggregate Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from Ward Farms' purchase of Enerbase Cooperative Resource's tractor at a third-party auction sale. Michael Ward, a partner of Ward Farms, attended an auction sale, and bid on the tractor. Shortly after the sale, Ward Farms discovered the tractor required significant repairs. At Ward Farms' request, Enerbase inspected the tractor and estimated the repair costs as ranging from $19,550 to $31,430. Subsequently, Ward Farms sued Enerbase alleging fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, and breach of express and implied warranties. Ward Farms sought alternative remedies of rescission or damages. Ward Farms appealed the district court judgment denying its motion to amend its complaint and granting a summary judgment motion in favor of Enerbase. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ward Farms' motion to amend, and the district court did not err in granting Enerbase's summary judgment motion because Ward Farms did not raise an issue of material fact regarding its claim. View "Ward Farms v. Enerbase Cooperative Resource" on Justia Law

Appellant submitted a bid for a highway project in Sublette County, Wyoming and was the low bidder. The Board of County Commissioners of Sublette County awarded the contract to another bidder, a contractor that was from Sublette County. Appellant filed a complaint in the district court alleging that by not entering into the contract with Appellant, the Commissioners violated Wyo. Stat. Ann. 16-6-102(a). The district court found in favor of the Commissioners on all claims. On appeal, the Supreme Court held section 16-6-102(a) inapplicable and remanded the case for a determination of whether the award was appropriate. On remand, the district court held generally in favor of the Commissioners, finding that the Commissioners’ award was within their discretion and appropriate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commissioners’ utilization of an undisclosed preference for Sublette County contractors in awarding the public contract opened for competitive bid constituted an illegal exercise of discretion. Remanded for a determination of damages. View "W. Wyo. Constr. Co., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Rachel Verdugo appealed an order granting a motion to stay based on a forum selection clause in her employment agreement with defendant-respondent Alliantgroup, L.P. The clause designated Harris County, Texas, as the exclusive forum for any dispute arising out of Verdugo’s employment, and also included a provision designating Texas law as governing all disputes. Verdugo contended the trial court erred because enforcing the forum selection clause and related choice-of-law clause violated California’s public policy on employee compensation. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the trial court’s order. View "Verdugo v. Alliantgroup" on Justia Law

In 1993, Petitioner and Respondent, who were in a romantic relationship, entered into an oral agreement in which they agreed to purchase lottery tickets and to share equally in the proceeds of any winning lottery tickets. In 2007, Respondent purchased a winning lottery ticket and collected one million dollars. When Respondent refused to share half the proceeds with Petitioner, Petitioner filed suit for breach of an oral contract and unjust enrichment. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Respondent. The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding (1) the breach of the alleged oral contract cause of action was barred by the statute of frauds; and (2) the district court erred in entering judgment for Respondent regarding the count for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that Petitioner’s oral agreement with Respondent to share equally in the proceeds of any winning lottery tickets they purchased fell outside the statute of frauds. View "Browning v. Poirier" on Justia Law

Drivers working for FedEx in Florida filed suit alleging a number of statutory and common-law claims against the company. At issue was whether FedEx properly classified the drivers as independent contractors. Applying Florida law, the court determined that several factors support the conclusion that the Florida drivers are independent contractors: the Operating Agreement itself identifies the drivers as independent contractors; FedEx pays the Florida drivers on a "settlement" basis; and the drivers can sell part or all of their service areas with notice or they can acquire service areas from other drivers. However, the court concluded that these contractual terms are not dispositive where, inter alia, other provisions of the Operating Agreement, together with FedEx's standard practices and procedures, seem to belie the creation of the status agreed to by the parties. Therefore, the court reversed the MDL court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx on the drivers’ employment status where there are genuine issues of matter fact as to whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx on the individual claims of Plaintiff Mosher and Harting. View "Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant sued Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (SFB) for breach of contract. SFB answered, alleging that Appellant’s claims were spurious and were made for an improper purpose. The circuit court granted summary judgment to SFB, concluding that Appellant had filed a frivolous claim against SFB without proper and reasonable investigation and imposed sanctions in the form of awarding attorney’s fees to SFB. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees because he did not prevail on the issue of his entitlement to the payment of a sum he sought; and (2) because SFB failed to comply with the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 11 in seeking Rule 11 sanctions, the circuit court erred in imposing Rule 11 sanctions. View "Swindle v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased a manufactured home from Defendant. The contract between Plaintiff and Defendant included an arbitration clause. Plaintiff later sued Defendant alleging fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to stay the court action and to compel arbitration. Plaintiff opposed arbitration, arguing that the arbitration agreement lacked mutuality and was unconscionable on multiple grounds. The trial court overruled Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the agreement’s “anti-waiver clause” was unconscionable and invalid, but the anti-waiver provision could be severed; (2) Plaintiff’s remaining objections did not render the contract as a whole unconscionable; and (3) absent the anti-waiver clause, the contract was not unconscionable. View "Eaton v. CMH Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

Unison, a South Korean company, manufactures, sells, delivers, and services Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs). JEDI is incorporated and located in Minnesota. In a Turbine Supply Agreement (TSA), Unison agreed to design, manufacture, and sell two WTGs to JEDI for installation in Minnesota for $2,574,900. In a Financing Agreement (FA), Unison agreed to lend to JEDI the TSA contract price. Unison sued JEDI in federal court in Minnesota, asserting 17 claims for relief under the FA. JEDI moved to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration clause in the TSA. The district court denied the motion. The Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding that the arbitration clause in the TSA covers the dispute. The court noted multiple cross-references, and the interdependent nature of the parties’ obligations under both the TSA and the FA, and concluded that they are “two parts of one overarching business plan between the same parties.” View "Unison Co., Ltd. v. Juhl Energy Dev., Inc." on Justia Law