Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

From 2005 to 2010, Plaintiff, a Maine resident, worked as a salesman for Alpha Networks, which was based in California, pursuant to a written employment agreement. Plaintiff left Alpha having received no commissions on his sales in 2009 or 2010. Plaintiff then filed suit. A jury concluded that Alpha had not promised to pay Plaintiff commissions after 2008 but concluded that Plaintiff was entitled to damages in the amount of $70,331 under quasi-contract. After trial, the parties disputed whether California or Maine law governed whether and to what extent the jury’s damages award should be augmented with additional remedies. Under California law, Plaintiff would be entitled to an additional award of $7,799, but under Maine law, Plaintiff would be entitled to an additional $140,663, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The district court concluded that California law applied. The First Circuit vacated the award and remanded, holding that Maine substantive law governed enforcement of the quasi-contractual relationship found to exist between the parties in 2009 and 2010.View "Dinan v. Alpha Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

Police officers discovered Thomas Locke, a US Airways mechanic at Logan International Airport, filching company property. US Airways entered into a “Last Chance Agreement” with Locke in lieu of termination and provided for Locke’s return to work. Logan International Airport, however, denied Locke’s application for renewal of his security badge. Thereafter, US Airways concluded that Locke had violated the terms of the Agreement and terminated his employment. Locke subsequently filed suit against US Airways, alleging that US Airways breached the Agreement by interfering with his application for a security badge at Logan Airport and by preventing him from transferring to Philadelphia International Airport. The district court granted summary judgment for US Airways. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no triable basis for Locke’s contentions in the record. View "Locke v. US Airways, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiff purchased a home in Bar Harbor, Maine from Defendants for $2.9 million. After his purchase, Plaintiff spent in excess of $1.5 million in repairs to the property. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant to recover damages for the repairs, alleging, among other claims, breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. A federal district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding (1) Maine’s implied warranty of habitability did not apply under the circumstances of this case, and Defendants had no duty of disclosure; and (2) Defendants were not entitled to attorney’s fees. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims; and (2) properly entered judgment on the record for Plaintiff on Defendants’ counterclaim for attorney’s fees. View "Thompson v. Miles" on Justia Law

This action stems from a dispute between plaintiff James Robert Malloy and Swain R. Thompson, regarding assets of Robert L. Chamblee (Decedent). The complaint alleged that Thompson, with the assistance of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., acted to disrupt Decedent's estate plan and divert Decedent's assets from Malloy to Thompson. Malloy characterized his claims against Merrill Lynch as: (1) intentional interference with inheritance; (2) aiding and abetting intentional interference with inheritance; (3) and civil conspiracy. Merrill Lynch moved to dismiss and compel arbitration arguing that its only connection to this dispute was through its contractual duties under the client relationship agreements (CRAs) entered into between Decedent and Merrill Lynch, which contained mandatory arbitration clauses. Merrill Lynch argued that although Malloy was a non-signatory to the agreements, any duty, if any, owed by Merrill Lynch to Malloy derives from the CRAs, and therefore, he is bound by the arbitration clauses. The circuit court denied the motion and found that while non-signatories may be bound to an arbitration agreement under common law principles of contract and agency law, none of those principles applied in this case, and therefore, there was no basis to compel Malloy to arbitrate. Merrill Lynch appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Merrill Lynch's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "Malloy v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Delores Williams, the personal representative of the Estate of Edward Murry, and Matthew Whitaker, Jr., the personal representative of the Estate of Annie Mae Murry (PRs), brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether a GEICO motor vehicle insurance policy issued to the Murrys provided $15,000 or $100,000 in liability proceeds for bodily injury for an accident in which both of the Murrys were killed. The circuit court concluded coverage was limited to the statutory minimum of $15,000 based on a family step-down provision in the policy that reduced coverage for bodily injury to family members from the stated policy coverage of $100,000 to the statutory minimum amount mandated by South Carolina law during the policy period. The PRs appealed, contending the step-down provision was ambiguous and/or violative of public policy. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court agreed with the circuit court that GEICO's policy is not ambiguous, but concluded the family step-down provision, which reduced the coverage under the liability policy from the stated policy amount to the statutory minimum, was violative of public policy and was, therefore, void. "The provision not only conflicte[d] with the mandates set forth in section 38-77-142, but its enforcement would be injurious to the public welfare." View "Williams v. GEICO" on Justia Law

The respondents, two developers and an architectural firm, Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. (S&W), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Columbia as part of a larger project team to develop a publicly-funded hotel for the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. The City eventually abandoned its plan under the MOU, and the respondents brought suit on several causes of action including breach of contract and equitable relief. The City moved for summary judgment arguing the MOU was not a contract and therefore the contract claims failed. The circuit court agreed and, rejecting the equitable claims as well, granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The respondents appealed and the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court reversed. Because the MOU was comprised of agreements to execute further agreements, there was no meeting of the minds on numerous material terms which had not yet been defined. Accordingly, the court of appeals was reversed with respect to that portion of the court's judgment; the Supreme Court held the MOU was unenforceable as a matter of law. The Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court and reinstated its judgment in favor of the City. View "Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. v. City of Columbia" on Justia Law

In April 2003, the City of Columbia entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. (S&W) and several other parties, to develop a publicly-funded hotel adjacent to the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. As architect, S&W was to complete sufficient preliminary design work to determine a guaranteed maximum price for the project, which would be used by the City to obtain municipal bond funding to cover the cost of the hotel. Pursuant to the MOU, the construction company was to pay S&W directly. On June 26, 2003, the City received a letter stating S&W would complete its preliminary design on July 10, 2003, and would then stop working until the bond financing for the hotel was finalized. Realizing this could delay the start of construction, S&W offered to continue working the remaining ninety days until the anticipated bond closing date of October 13, 2003, but required assurance it would be compensated for the work it performed during this time frame. It provided an estimate requiring $650,000 and $75,000 per week after that. On July 30, the City approved "$650,000 for interim architectural design services for a period of 90 days prior to bond closing." The bond closing did not occur as scheduled, but S&W nevertheless continued to work. S&W submitted an invoice to the City for $697,084.79 for work that took place from July 10 to December 15, 2003. By letter dated December 17, 2003, S&W informed the construction company that the City had voted that day "to advance [$705,000.000] to the design team for design services and expenses. Because under the MOU the construction company was to pay S&W, not the City, the construction company agreed to reimburse the City for the funds paid to S&W after the bond closing. The City paid S&W's invoice. S&W continued to work on the project, but in March 2004, the City abandoned its plans under the MOU and ended its relationship with S&W. S&W received no further compensation and sued the City for breach of contract under the MOU and the July 2003 agreement. The City argued there was no separate agreement and the payment of interim fees was merely an advance on fees under the MOU and furthermore, the MOU provided that S&W was to be paid by the construction company, not the City. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of S&W, finding a contract existed between it and the City. On certiorari, the City conceded a contract exists, but argued the contract terms have been satisfied. The Supreme Court found the City's arguments were unpreserved and affirmed as modified. View "Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. v. City of Columbia" on Justia Law

When Respondent was promoted from her position was an hourly employee to a salaried managerial position at one of Appellants’ long-term care facilities, the parties signed an employment agreement and arbitration agreement. Appellants later terminated Respondent from her position. Respondent filed a class action lawsuit against Appellants seeking compensation for allegedly unpaid overtime hours. Appellants filed a motion to compel arbitration, but the circuit court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Respondent’s continued at-will employment and Appellants’ promise to resolve claims through arbitration did not provide valid consideration to support the arbitration agreement. View "Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc." on Justia Law

In September 2003, appellant The Cutler Group, Inc. sold a new house in Bucks County to Davey and Holly Fields. After living in the house for three years, the Fields sold the house to appellees Michael and Deborah Conway. In 2008, Appellees discovered water infiltration around some of the windows in the home, and, after consultation with an engineering and architectural firm, concluded that the infiltration was caused by several construction defects. In 2011, Appellees filed a one-count complaint against Appellant, alleging that its manner of construction breached the home builders' implied warranty of habitability. Appellant filed a demurrer, arguing, inter alia, that, as a matter of law, the warranty rextended from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home because there was no contractual relationship between the builder and second or subsequent purchasers of the home. Recognizing that courts have traditionally required a showing of privity of contract before permitting a party to proceed with a warranty claim, the trial court concluded that the question presented was "one of policy as to who will bear the burden for damages caused by latent defects [in] relatively new residential dwellings." The trial court sustained Appellant's demurer based on lack of privity, and dismissed Appellees' complaint with prejudice. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Superior Court, appellees petitioned the Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited residence may not recover contract damages for breach of the builder's implied warranty of habitability.View "Conway v. The Cutler Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The parties in this case were two specialty food business and their respective owners. The current dispute arose when the companies signed a distribution agreement and orally promised to form a joint venture between the businesses. After one company formally terminated the distribution agreement, Plaintiffs sued Defendants seeking to recover money damages for breach of an oral contract and promissory estoppel for failing to form the joint venture. The trial court found in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs’ claims except promissory estoppel and rendered judgment for Defendants on their breach of contract counterclaim. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in all respects, holding that the trial court properly (1) calculated Plaintiffs’ damages; (2) rendered judgment for Defendants on their counterclaim; and (3) rendered judgment for Plaintiffs on their promissory estoppel claim.View "Weiss v. Smulders" on Justia Law