Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff entered into a salvage contract with Defendant to obtain help when his boat went aground one night. Plaintiff later attempted to rescind the contract, claiming that he signed the contract under duress and disputing the sum owed to Defendant. The parties submitted the dispute to a panel of arbitrators pursuant to a binding arbitration clause in the salvage contract. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction against the arbitration and a declaration that the salvage contract was unenforceable. The district court denied the motion and stayed the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. The arbitration panel found in favor of Defendant and ordered Plaintiff to pay a salvage award. The district court affirmed the award. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court erred in confirming the arbitration award without first addressing his claim that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, where Plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the arbitration clause itself came only after Defendant moved to confirm the panel’s award, the district court had no proper basis on which to refuse to confirm the arbitration panel’s award. View "Farnsworth, III v. Towboat Nantucket Sound, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involved an alleged fraudulent scheme involving United Bank and McQuade Appraisal Services (collectively, Respondents) to inflate the value of property in a residential development called Walnut Springs Mountain Reserve (Walnut Springs). Walnut Springs ultimately failed and was abandoned by the developer. Petitioners were owners of lots in Walnut Springs. The circuit court dismissed Petitioners’ claims, concluding, inter alia, that the majority of the claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud in the inducement and aiding and abetting fraud in the inducement, negligence, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, respondent superior, and punitive damages, as the claims were not time-barred; and (2) affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, holding that the court’s judgment regarding these claims was not in error. View "Evans v. United Bank, Inc." on Justia Law

In the name of controlling litigation costs, a heating and air conditioning contractor, Blue Hen Mechanical, Inc. sued Christian Brothers Risk Pooling Trust as subrogee for the Little Sisters of the Poor for malicious prosecution. In January 2008, the Little Sisters of the Poor contracted with Blue Hen to maintain the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment at its nonprofit residential nursing home facility. Two months later, the nursing home's air conditioner broke, requiring the unit to be replaced at a cost of $168,740. The Little Sisters of the Poor filed suit against Blue Hen, alleging that the unit's failure was due to Blue Hen's negligence in inspecting and maintaining the equipment. After briefing and oral argument, the Superior Court determined that the Little Sisters of the Poor had not produced sufficient evidence of Blue Hen's negligence, and granted Blue Hen's motion for summary judgment. Rather than seek costs in that lawsuit, Blue Hen initiated another suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor, alleging malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Blue Hen conceded that the Little Sisters of the Poor initially had good cause to sue. But it contended that during the course of that litigation, the Little Sisters of the Poor should have realized that its suit lacked probable cause, and should have dismissed its claims against Blue Hen. The Superior Court refused to enlarge the tort of malicious prosecution, which has historically been disfavored by Delaware courts, and determined that under the tort (as Delaware court have defined it), Blue Hen failed to demonstrate that the Little Sisters of the Poor acted maliciously in bringing its action and granted summary judgment to the Little Sisters of the Poor. Blue Hen appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed: "[w]hatever the original wisdom for sanctioning the tort of malicious prosecution, we refuse to extend it to encompass claims properly brought before the court in the first instance. As important, there is no basis in the summary judgment record to support a rational jury finding that the Little Sisters of the Poor acted maliciously in the original suit, rather than in a good faith belief that Blue Hen was responsible for the serious losses that the Little Sisters of the Poor had suffered." View "Blue Hen Mechanical, Inc. v. Christian Brothers Risk Pooling Trust" on Justia Law

A homeowner sued a general contractor for allegedly shoddy and incomplete work in connection with a major home remodeling contract. The homeowner’s complaint also contained a cause of action against the general contractor’s license bond company, seeking to recover for the contractor’s having “grossly deviated” from the plans and specifications for the job. To support his action, the homeowner explicitly alleged in the complaint that the contractor was licensed at all times. The contractor cross-complained against the homeowner for unpaid work. The cross-complaint included a copy of their written contract which showed the contractor’s license number. To that, the homeowner simply filed a general denial of all allegations. When the case came to trial, the homeowner (contrary to the applicable local rule requiring plaintiffs to identify all controverted issues) did not identify licensure as a controverted issue. The contractor’s attorney did not obtain a verified certificate from the Contractors’ State License Board showing the contractor was licensed at all times during his performance. But when the contractor was about to rest his case on the cross-complaint, the homeowner’s attorney made a motion for nonsuit based on the absence of such a verified certificate as required under Business and Professions Code section 7031, subdivision (d). The trial judge deferred immediate ruling on the homeowner’s nonsuit motion. "As the contractor learned to his chagrin, it [...] takes at least six days to obtain a verified certificate from the License Board even if one drives overnight to Sacramento to pick it up in person." While the contractor was eventually able to obtain a verified certificate of licensure from the License Board, he could not do so until after the close of the trial, in which he prevailed on his claim for unpaid work from the homeowner. Because no certificate of licensure could be produced, the trial judge reluctantly granted the homeowner’s nonsuit motion, by judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). This appeal followed. After review, the Court of Appeal reversed that judgment in favor of the homeowner, with instructions to the trial judge to grant judgment in favor of the general contractor as against the homeowner. "We conclude this is one of those relatively rare cases where a party can be bound by a judicial admission made in an unverified complaint. Here, the judicial admission that the general contractor was licensed, compounded by the homeowner’s failure to comply with the local rule requiring identification of all controverted issues, rendered the question of licensure assuredly uncontroverted for purposes of section 7031. Because of the judicial admission, the rule of 'Advantec Group, Inc. v. Edwin’s Plumbing Co., Inc.' (153 Cal.App.4th 621 (2007)) does not apply." View "Womack v. Lovell" on Justia Law

This appeal and cross-appeal involved a longstanding financial dispute between appellant and cross-appellee Jim Tafel, and appellee and cross-appellant Lion Antique Cars & Investments, Inc., involving two Ferrari race cars. In the main appeal, Tafel argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in declining to exercise its equitable powers to mark satisfied a judgment that Lion Antique had obtained against him. In the cross-appeal, Lion Antique argued the trial court erred in valuing the race cars for purposes of offsetting a part of the judgment that it had obtained against Tafel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Tafel v. Lion Antique Cars & Investments, Inc." on Justia Law

Ben Lack was employed as a draftsman at Marshall Hunn's architectural design firm. After Lack resigned from his position from a project for Hunn's client, Dan Wilson Homes, Dan Wilson hired Lack to complete the project. Hunn filed suit alleging that Lack and Wilson secretly agreed to cut Hunn out of the business relationship. The district court granted summary judgment to Lack and Wilson on many claims and ruled in favor of them on the remaining claims. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Lack and Wilson never made the alleged secret agreement and Hunn's legal theories lack merit. View "Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes Inc." on Justia Law

The Illinois Business Brokers Act of 1995 requires brokers for the sale of businesses in the state to register. Brokerage agreements must be in writing. Promises to pay unregistered brokers for their services are unenforceable. Global Technology, apparently unaware of the statute, orally agreed with Satyam Computer Services (based in India) to act as a broker in the purchase of Bridge Strategy, an Illinois business. Global brokered the acquisition, but Satyam refused to pay. Global sued, seeking a 3% commission ($600,000). Satyam contended that Bridge had compensated Global for its services as an intermediary and that it had never promised any additional compensation. When the litigation was four years old, Satyam moved for summary judgment with a new argument: that Global is not registered under the Act. Global argued that the Act is an affirmative defense, which under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) had to appear in Satyam’s answer. Finding that Global had not suffered prejudice, the court excused Satyam’s delay and entered judgment in its favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rule 8(c) does not provide a consequence for delay. District judges have authority to authorize a litigant to assert an affirmative defense despite its omission from the answer. View "Global Tech. & Trading, inc. v. Tech Mahindra Ltd." on Justia Law

In 2003, the governors of Cedar Rapids Lodge obtained the rights to build an AmericInn franchise. The company used Lightowler as the project architect. Lightowler used a standard form agreement that specified that its terms would be governed by the law of North Dakota. After changes requested by the Fire Marshal and for compliance with franchise standards, Lightowler submitted revised plans in February, 2004. Construction began in January 2004. In July, 2004, Lidberg of AmericInn led a construction site visit attended by the governors, and Olson, a Lightowler engineer. Lidberg and Olson prepared reports detailing deficiencies. The last act performed by Lightowler on the project was a response to the contractor in September, 2004. Lidberg led a second site visit in October, 2004, produced a report identifying additional deficiencies, and sent it to Siebert and Lightowler. The hotel opened for business in December, 2004, but problems continued. In December, 2009 Cedar Rapids Lodge brought claims against its former governors and others involved in the hotel project and alleging professional negligence by Lightowler. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Lightowler, concluding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations under either North Dakota or Iowa law. View "Cedar Rapids Lodge & Suites, LLC v. Lightowler Johnson Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this residential construction dispute was whether the statutory cap on exemplary damages is waived if not pleaded as an affirmative defense or avoidance. The trial court affirmed an exemplary damages award in excess of the statutory cap because Petitioner did not assert the cap until her motion for a new trial. The court of appeals affirmed the exemplary damages award, concluding that the statutory cap on exemplary damages did not apply because Petitioner failed to expressly plead the cap as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals’ judgment in relation to the exemplary cap, holding (i) the exemplary damages cap is not a matter ”constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense” and need not be affirmatively pleaded because it applies automatically when invoked and does not require proof of additional facts, and (ii) because Petitioner timely asserted the cap in her motion for new trial, the exemplary damages must be capped at $200,000; and (2) affirmed in all other respects. View "Zorilla v. Aypco Constr. II, LLC" on Justia Law

The Pifer Group, Inc., appealed, and Judith Liebelt and Sandra and Dennis Janke cross-appealed, a judgment awarding Pifer Group $8,215.81 for breach of two land auction sale agreements. Liebelt and the Jankes entered into separate land auction sale agreements with Pifer Group to auction their Cass County farmland. On the morning of the scheduled auction, Liebelt and the Jankes sent Pifer Group an email stating: "We are withdrawing from today's 11am land auction and will refuse any and all bids pursuant to our contract agreement." No auction sale was held. Pifer Group sued Liebelt and the Jankes for breach of the auction sale agreements and sought damages based on full sales commissions that would have been owed if the sales occurred. Construing the auction sale agreements, the district court on summary judgment awarded Pifer Group only cancellation fees of $8,215.81 and rejected the arguments of Liebelt and the Jankes that the agreements were void as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the auction sale agreements are enforceable and the district court did not err in its interpretation of them. View "Pifer Group, Inc. v. Liebelt" on Justia Law