Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

NAF filed suit against Trading for breach of contract and sought damages, alleging that Trading wrongfully repudiated the contract and that, as a consequence of the breach, NAF lost financing commitments provided by third parties and was unable to complete the acquisition of Hampton. On appeal, NAF challenged the district court's judgment in favor of Trading. The court certified the following question to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware: Where the plaintiff has secured a contractual commitment of its contracting counterparty, the defendant, to render a benefit to a third party, and the counterparty breaches that commitment, may the promisee-plaintiff bring a direct suit against the promisor for damages suffered by the plaintiff resulting from the promisor’s breach, notwithstanding that (1) the third-party beneficiary of the contract is a corporation in which the plaintiff-promisee owns stock; and (ii) the plaintiff-promisee’s loss derives indirectly from the loss suffered by the third-party beneficiary corporation; or must the court grant the motion of the promisor-defendant to dismiss the suit on the theory that the plaintiff may enforce the contract only through a derivative action brought in the name of the third-party beneficiary corporation? View "NAF Holdings, LLC v. Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd." on Justia Law

Zaki filed suit against ANI for breach of contract and conversion, among other things, after ANI sold Zaki's aircraft parts without properly accounting for the sales proceeds, charging Zaki for inflated storage expenses, and failing to return the parts after Zaki terminated the consignment agreement. Zaki also requested an accounting. The court held that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to grant Zaki an accounting; the district court failed to recognize the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the parties alone constituted sufficient grounds for an accounting under Florida law and erroneously concluded that an action for damages afforded an adequate alternative; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "Zaki Kulaibee Establishment v. McFliker, et al." on Justia Law

In this case, Subodh Raysoni raised consumer fraud claims under the Fair Business Practices Act of 1975 against Payless Auto Deals, LLC, alleging that Payless gave false assurances that a used minivan never had been in a collision or otherwise damaged - assurances upon which he relied - when he purchased the minivan from Payless. Contending that the terms of their written contract rendered any such reliance unreasonable as a matter of law, Payless moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted that motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Payless relied on several provisions of the contract disclaiming warranties, but the Supreme Court held that its reliance was misplaced because these disclaimers were not absolute and unequivocal enough to warrant judgment on the pleadings: "We cannot say as a matter of law that the contractual disclaimers of warranties - which are, at least arguably, equivocal and limited - preclude any reasonable reliance in this case on a written Carfax report furnished by Payless. We do not mean to suggest that the provisions of the contract upon which Payless relies would not have been most reasonably understood by a customer just as Payless argues. On these pleadings, we cannot say as a matter of law that Raysoni will be unable to show that his reliance on representations that the minivan was undamaged and never had been in a wreck - particularly the written Carfax report - was reasonable." Judgment on the pleadings ought not have been awarded to Payless. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Raysoni v. Payless Auto Deals, LLC" on Justia Law

With the threat of foreclosure looming on his home, Plaintiff sued Bank for failing to consider him for a mortgage loan modification, which a California class action settlement agreement required Bank to do before attempting to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home. The complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, 35A and 35B, violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The First Circuit vacated in part and remanded Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding (1) Plaintiff’s statutory causes of action fell short of stating a cognizable claim; but (2) the district court improperly converted Bank’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s contract-based claims into a motion for summary judgment, warranting a remand of those claims. View "Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Regions Bank appealed a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration in its dispute with Jerry Neighbors. Neighbors obtained a home loan from Regions in 1999. As part of the loan application, Neighbors executed a dispute-resolution agreement (DRA). In 2008, Neighbors modified the loan. Neighbors denied he signed the loan-modification agreement; he claimed that his signature on that document was forged. The loan-modification agreement also contained an arbitration provision. In 2013, Neighbors sued Regions, alleging that Regions had negligently and wantonly allowed an imposter to forge Neighbors's signature on the loan-modification agreement. Relying on the DRA, Regions moved to compel the arbitration of Neighbors's claims. Neighbors opposed the motion to compel, arguing that because the dispute in this case involved an alleged forgery, the dispute could not be subject to the provisions of the DRA. Neighbors also suggested that the DRA did not cover his claims because, pursuant to the terms of the judgment divorcing him and his wife, he stopped making payments on the original mortgage in 2006 when his ex-wife remarried. Although Neighbors characterized the dispute otherwise, the Supreme Court concluded that the dispute in this case concerned the scope of the DRA. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Regions Bank v. Neighbors" on Justia Law

Petitioners, the West Virginia Investment Management Board (IMB) and the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (Board), instituted a declaratory judgment action against the Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company (VALIC) requesting judicial resolution of Petitioners’ entitlement to a full surrender of two annuity contracts without delays in payment or surrender charges. The trial court granted VALIC’s motion for summary judgment, resolving Petitioners’ claims on grounds of standing, the absence of a justiciable controversy, and the lack of ambiguity concerning the language of a policy endorsement in dispute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred in finding that no justiciable controversy existed between the parties and that Petitioners lacked standing in relation to the contracts; and (2) the policy endorsement language under review was of such doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might disagree as to its meaning.View "W. Va. Inv. Mgmt. Bd. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins." on Justia Law

Appellee was employed by Appellant on two separate occasions. On each occasion, Appellee signed a noncompete agreement. After Appellee’s second term of employment ended he filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the noncompete agreements were unenforceable. The district court entered declaratory judgment in favor of Appellee, determining that the noncompete agreements were unreasonable and unenforceable because the scope of the noncompete agreements was greater than reasonably necessary to protect Appellant against unfair competition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the applicable noncompete agreement was greater than reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of Appellant and was therefore unreasonable and unenforceable.View "Gaver v. Schneider’s O.K. Tire Co." on Justia Law

In 1999 Seltzer registered the word “Kashwére” as a trademark for chenille soft goods. In 2009, Seltzer sold his company’s assets, including the trademark, to its principal officers. They formed TMG, which granted Seltzer an exclusive license to sell chenille products under the Kashwére name in Japan, through Flat Be. TMG claims that Seltzer violated his license by creating USAJPN and transferring to it all rights conferred by his license, to create an appearance of distance between Seltzer and Flat Be. Although Seltzer owned a majority interest in USAJPN, he needed TMG’s approval for the transfer. Flat Be also created a line of fabrics, “Kashwére Re,’ that are not chenille. Seltzer’s license does not authorize use of the Kashwére name for products that are not chenille, but he claimed that a TMG owner approved the Kashwére Re project. USAJPN also failed to comply with a requirement to disclose the TMG licensee. The district judge denied TMG’s request to order the license cancelled or to enjoin future violations and award damages. The Seventh Circuit upheld summary judgment in favor of TMG on Seltzer’s and Flat Be’s counterclaims, but reversed summary judgment in favor of Seltzer and Flat Be on TMG’s claims.View "Kashwere, LLC v. Kashwere USAJPN, LLC" on Justia Law

Due to a dispute between the Citrus County Hospital Board and the Citrus Memorial Health Foundation, Inc., the Legislature enacted a special law that reeancted the Board’s charter. Section 16 of the charter included subsections that specifically addressed the Board’s relationship with the Foundation. The Foundation filed suit against the Board seeking a declaratory judgment that the the special law was an unconstitutional impairment of the parties’ contracts. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board, concluding (1) the Foundation was prohibited from challenging the constitutionality of the special law because it was a public or quasi-public corporation; and (2) the special law did not impair the Foundation’s contracts. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that, as applied to the Foundation, the special law significantly altered the parties’ contractual rights and was an unconstitutional impairment of their contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Contract Clause of the Florida Constitution applies to the Foundation’s contracts; and (2) as applied, the special law unconstitutionally impairs the Foundation’s contracts.View "Citrus County Hosp. Bd. v. Citrus Memorial Health Found., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, a Canadian company, contracted with Plaintiff, a Massachusetts investment bank, to be its exclusive financial advisor for the sale of its business. The parties negotiated and executed the agreement from their respective home offices, contacting each other by phone, e-mail, and internet. Plaintiff later sued in Massachusetts Superior Court alleging breach of contract, among other claims. Defendant removed the case to federal district court. The district court subsequently dismissed the case, concluding that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant consistently with the Due Process Clause. The First Circuit reversed, holding that, in light of the nature, number, origin, and duration of the parties’ contacts in this case, the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction by Massachusetts was consistent with fair play and substantial justice.View "C.W. Downer & Co. v. Bioriginal Food & Sci. Corp." on Justia Law