Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff contracted with the Town of Bethel to perform electrical work in connection with the Town’s renovation of its high school. Plaintiff later sued the Town, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment and claiming that the Town must reimburse it for additional costs incurred due to the Town’s ongoing asbestos abatement work at the school. The trial court rendered judgment for the Town in part, concluding that the Town's conduct did not fall within either of two judicial created exceptions to the enforcement of “no damages for delay” clauses adopted by the Court in White Oak Corp. v. Dep’t of Transportation. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that Plaintiff was not entitled to compensation under any of the “no damages for delay” exceptions at issue, holding (1) the term “active interference,” as used in the contract, did not require a showing of bad faith or gross negligence; but (2) the Town’s conduct in this case did not rise to the level of active interference or fall within either of the White Oak exceptions.View "C & H Elec., Inc. v. Town of Bethel" on Justia Law

Appellant and her two siblings owned certain parcels of land in Park City as tenants in common with United Park City Mines (UPCM). Appellant and UPCM decided jointly to develop the parcels, and Wasatch County approved the parties’ development plan. UPCM was subsequently acquired by Mountain Resort Developments’ (MRD) parent company. MRD and Appellant could not agree how to jointly develop the property or on a purchase price for Appellant’s interest in the parcels. The parties ultimately entered a settlement agreement and exchanged interests in the parcels. After the exchange of deeds under the settlement agreement, MRD asserted that Appellant had not retained development rights under the development plan. Appellant sued for breach of contract, among other claims. The district court granted summary judgment for MRD on all of Appellant’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s breach of contract claim failed because Appellant and MRD did not agree to continue to develop their properties in compliance with the development plan, and therefore, there was no reasonable basis for Appellant to believe she would retain development rights as detailed in that plan; and (2) the remainder of Appellant’s claims failed because Appellant did not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the elements of those causes of action.View "Keith v. Mountain Resorts Dev., LLC " on Justia Law

Steven Jacobs, the former chief executive officer of Sands China Ltd., filed a complaint against his former employer, alleging, among other things, breach of contract claims. Throughout discovery on the issue of whether Sands was subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada, Sands maintained that it could not disclose any documents containing personal information that are located in Macau due to restrictions within the Macau Personal Data Protection Act (MPDPA). The district court subsequently issued an order precluding Sands from raising the MPDPA as an objection or defense to disclosure of any documents. Thereafter, Jacobs moved for Nev. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions, arguing that Sands had violated the district court’s order by redacting personal data contained in its Macau-related document production based on MPDPA restrictions. The Supreme Court denied Sands’s petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus, holding (1) the mere presence of a foreign international privacy statute does not itself preclude Nevada district courts from ordering litigants to comply with Nevada discovery rules; and (2) in this case, the district court properly found that the existence of a foreign international privacy statute did not excuse Petitioners from complying with the district court’s discovery order.View "Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Steven C. Jacobs, the former chief executive officer of Sands China Ltd., filed a complaint against his former employer, alleging, among other things, that Sands breached his employment contract. At issue in this case was Jacobs’ possession of purportedly privileged documents in the form of e-mails and other communications that he gathered on the day he was terminated. The district court ordered Jacobs to turn over the copies of the documents to an independent vendor. The district court granted Jacobs’ motion for the return of the documents, concluding that Jacobs was among the “class of persons” legally entitled to view and use privileged documents that pertained to his tenure at Sands. Sands then filed this original petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, holding (1) a corporation’s current management is the sole holder of its attorney-client privilege, and thus, Nevada law does not allow for a judicially created class of persons exception to attorney-client privilege; and (2) the district court erred in ruling that Jacobs, based solely on his former executive position with Sands, was legally allowed to use the purportedly privileged documents over Sands’s claim of privilege.View "Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Daisy Monzo gifted a condominium that she owned to an irrevocable trust for the benefit of her daughter, Charron Monzo. Daisy subsequently signed another deed transferring the condo back into her own name. Charron filed a petition seeking an order requiring Daisy to transfer the condo back to the trust. The district court granted partial summary judgment for Daisy, concluding that Daisy’s execution of the deed transferring title to the condo into the trust was based on unilateral mistakes. Charron then filed this original writ petition challenging the district court’s partial summary judgment order. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding (1) a donor may obtain relief from an erroneous gift if she proves by clear and convincing evidence that her intent was mistaken and not in accord with the donative transfer; (2) remedies available to correct such mistakes depend on the nature of the unilateral mistake in question; and (3) because it was uncertain what Daisy’s donative intent was at the time of the donative transfer, genuine issues of fact remained as to whether unilateral mistakes affected Daisy’s execution of the deed transferring the condo into the trust, and therefore, partial summary judgment was improper.View "In re Irrevocable Trust Agreement of 1979" on Justia Law

Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. sued Edgetech I.G.,Inc., n/k/a Quanex I.G. Systems, Inc.; Quanex Building Products Corporation; Thompson I.G., LLC, and RDM Consulting, LLC; and Wynne Enterprises, Inc. Edgetech filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion. Edgetech then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that the Supreme Court direct the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to dismiss and to enter an order granting the motion and dismissing the case against it. Finding that the trial court erred in denying Edgetech's motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court granted Edgetech's petition and issued the writ. View "Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. v. Thompson I.G., LLC et al. " on Justia Law

In 2007, plaintiffs Sylvia and Stanley Stroup sued defendants Peter Doran and Peter Doran Landscape Design, LLC for breach of contract, fraud, and consumer fraud after defendants failed to perform landscaping for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against defendants. Defendants failed to pay the judgment. Plaintiffs obtained a writ of execution, and the court approved plaintiffs’ motion for trustee process to attach funds owned by defendants and held by Brattleboro Savings and Loan Association (BSL). BSL disclosed to plaintiffs that it held a balance of $2,853.05 in a checking account titled in the name of one of the defendants. A few days later, the parties stipulated that BSL would release $750 to plaintiffs, and that BSL would then be discharged as a trustee and defendant’s account would be free of any lien or charge benefitting plaintiffs. Defendants further agreed to pay $3,500 to plaintiffs before January 31, 2008. BSL paid plaintiffs $750. Plaintiffs claim that defendants never paid the remainder of their debt. In 2013, plaintiffs served BSL with another trustee summons. BSL did not reply within thirty days, and on August 27 plaintiffs moved for default against BSL and entry of judgment against it as trustee for $24,155.12, the balance due under the judgment. The court ordered the clerk to schedule a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, and directed that a copy of plaintiffs’ motion and the notice of hearing be served on BSL. On September 16, BSL filed a trustee disclosure indicating that it did not have any of defendants’ property in its possession. The court subsequently entered an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against BSL. The court stated that “[a]lthough Trustee failed to make a timely disclosure, its disclosure now made in response to Plaintiff[s’] motion for default shows that it holds no assets for the benefit of Defendant[s]. Default judgment under these circumstances would be inequitable.” Plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in denying their motion for default because applicable Vermont law makes default mandatory when a trustee fails to serve a disclosure within thirty days. Plaintiffs did not contest the information contained in the trustee’s disclosure form or request an evidentiary hearing below. See V.R.C.P. 4.2(g) (stating that party who intends to contest information contained in trustee’s disclosure is entitled to evidentiary hearing upon written request). Nor do they contest the information on appeal. Their sole argument before this Court is that default was mandatory under 12 V.S.A. § 3062 and V.R.C.P. 4.2(f). Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Stroup v. Doran" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company insured the vehicle involved in the accident at issue in this case. Given the number of victims, the policy’s liability coverage did not fully compensate at least one of the injured passengers. The parties disputed whether the injured passenger was therefore entitled to UIM benefits under Progressive’s policy. Progressive argued that coverage was barred by certain exclusions in its policy. The trial court found Progressive’s exclusions unenforceable as inconsistent with the definition of an "underinsured vehicle" set forth in 23 V.S.A. 941(f). Progressive appealed, arguing that its exclusions should be enforced, and that it should not have to provide both liability and UIM benefits to the injured passenger. The Supreme Court agreed with Progressive after its review of the case, and therefore, reversed the trial court’s decision.View "Progressive Casuality Insurance Co. v. MMG Insurnace Co." on Justia Law

In this case and its companion, LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC,(No. 88132-4), the central issues on appeal arose from a joint venture agreement regarding a debt collection business. The debt collection business operated according to the terms of the joint venture agreement, as originally proposed, from approximately winter 2005 through summer 2007. In this opinion, the issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of equitable indemnification (known as the "ABC Rule") to hold that the legal malpractice plaintiffs here suffered no compensable damages as a matter of law and that summary judgment dismissal was appropriate. "Where the only damages claimed by a legal malpractice plaintiff are attorney fees incurred in a separate litigation and the only legal basis on which plaintiff asserts those fees are compensable is the ABC Rule, then the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissal if the ABC Rule does not apply to the undisputed facts as a matter of law." That was the situation presented in this case, and as such, affirmed the trial court. View "LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC" on Justia Law

In this case and its companion, LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC, (No. 88846-9) (Wash. July 31, 2014), the central issues on appeal arose from a joint venture agreement regarding a debt collection business. The debt collection business operated according to the terms of the joint venture agreement, as originally proposed, from approximately winter 2005 through summer 2007. This opinion addressed whether the trial court proceedings complied with due process requirements; whether, as a matter of law, the joint venture proposal was entered by an attorney in violation of one or both of former RPCs 1.7 (1995) and 1.8(a) (2000); and, if so, whether the remedy imposed by the trial court and affirmed on appeal is appropriate. The Supreme Court found: (1) the trial court proceedings satisfied the requirements of procedural due process; (2) though on different reasoning from that used by the Court of Appeals, that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that the joint venture proposal contemplated a business transaction subject to, agreed to, and entered into in violation of former RPC 1.8(a). The Court affirmed that the former RPC 1.8(a) violation rendered the terms of the business transaction unenforceable under the circumstances presented and the remedy imposed was appropriate. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the business transaction was entered in violation of former RPC 1. 7. The Court declined to determine whether the former RPC 1.7 violation would have also justified the remedy imposed. View "LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC" on Justia Law