Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs agreed to lease medical diagnostic imaging equipments to Defendants for use in a medical imaging center. The center proved to be unsuccessful shortly after it opened, and Defendants defaulted on their payments. Plaintiffs filed a fourteen-count complaint against Defendants that included counts for replevin, breach of contract, breach of consent to sublease, and breach of sublease. Defendants counterclaimed for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, and a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. The superior court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on all claims and counterclaims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact, and therefore, summary judgment was proper on Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ counterclaims. View "Siemens Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Stonebridge Equip. Leasing, LLC " on Justia Law

In 2007, the Easthams entered into a five-year lease with Chesapeake, granting the right to extract oil and gas from the Easthams’ 49 acres in Jefferson County, Ohio. The Easthams were granted a royalty of one-eighth of the oil and gas produced from the premises. Until a well was commenced on the premises, the Easthams were entitled to “delay rental” payments of $10 per acre annually. The lease stated “Upon the expiration of this lease and within sixty (60) days thereinafter, Lessor grants to Lessee an option to extend or renew under similar terms a like lease.” In 2012, Chesapeake filed a notice of extension with the County Recorder and sent the Easthams a letter stating that it had extended the lease on the same terms for an additional five years, with a delay rental payment for $490.66. The Easthams later claimed that they did not read and did not understand the lease, but were not pressured into signing it. They filed a class action, seeking a declaration that the lease expired and that title to the oil and gas underneath the property be quieted in their favor. They claimed that the agreement did not give Chesapeake the option to unilaterally extend, but required that the parties renegotiate at the end of the initial term. The district court entered summary judgment for Chesapeake, concluding that the lease’s plain language gave Chesapeake options either to extend the lease under its existing terms or renegotiate under new terms. The Sixth Circuit affirmed View "Eastham v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C." on Justia Law

IDT Corp. and Tyco International Ltd. litigated and negotiated for fifteen years over the development and use of a telecommunications system. In 2004, IDT claimed that Tyco breached its obligation under a 2000 settlement agreement to negotiate additional agreements in good faith. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that IDT’s claim was unsupported by the record. After the Court’s decision, more negotiations took place. In 2010, IDT again sued Tyco for breach of contract and breach of the duty to negotiate in good faith. The Court of Appeals rejected IDT’s claim, holding that the parties’ obligation to negotiate in good faith came to an end without a breach by either party because the parties had reached a “good faith impasse.” View "IDT Corp. v Tyco Group, S.A.R.L." on Justia Law

The lawsuit underlying this action alleged that Glynis McCormack’s ward sexually and physically abused a younger boy. In this declaratory judgment action, the district court ruled that Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, McCormack’s insurer, had a duty to defend McCormack in the underlying lawsuit. Metropolitan appealed, arguing that the alleged harmful conduct was excluded from coverage under the governing policy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, McCormack’s policy would cover the harm alleged in the complaint, and therefore, Metropolitan had a duty to defend McCormack in the underlying action. View "Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Administrators of the estates of two individuals killed in a single-engine airplane crash filed wrongful death actions against Honeywell International, Inc., the manufacturer of the plane’s autopilot system, alleging that Honeywell breached of the warranty of merchantability. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Honeywell. The Administrators appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay statements in testimony regarding an accident investigation report prepared by the Mooney Airplane Company describing its investigation of the crash, and their admission was not harmless error; and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting certain opinion testimony and in allowing Honeywell’s counsel to make certain statements during closing argument. View "Harman v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1987, Krauser, a periodontist, designed a dental implant system. He paid BHI’s predecessor to produce drawings and prototypes. In1991, the parties entered into a written agreement that specified that Krauser would develop new products for the company to produce and sell and that the drawings were “property of [BHI].” Krauser was entitled to royalties. Krauser obtained a patent covering one component of the system and listing Krauser as the inventor. The company subsequently secured patents covering dental implant systems, naming Shaw as the sole inventor. Krauser sued the company and Shaw for a declaration of ownership rights and for copyright and patent infringement. While the suits were pending, the company filed for bankruptcy, and Krauser filed claims in bankruptcy court. In a settlement agreement, Krauser granted the company a 10-year patent license and “all rights . . . [to] the dental implant system currently being manufactured.” The bankruptcy court approved the agreement. Later, several patents on dental implant systems issued to BHI. None listed Krauser as an inventor. Krauser alleged that BHI failed to pay the full amount of royalties or submit to required audits and claimed default. The district court granted BHI summary judgment, construing the settlement to apply only to implants being manufactured in 1996, not implants manufactured at the time of litigation, and finding that Krauser had no ownership rights. The Eleventh Circuit transferred the case “[b]ecause the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction … relating to patents.” The Federal Circuit transferred the case back, noting that Krauser had dropped his claim of inventorship. View "Krauser v. Biohorizons, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked in a luggage factory in France that was owned by Samsonite. Samsonite was controlled by an investment group led by Bain Capital, LLC. Bain wanted to shut down the factory, and to avoid paying millions of dollars in post-termination benefits to the laid-off employees of the factory, Bain and Samsonite hired a third party, HB Group, to buy the factory. In 2007, a French court ordered the judicial liquidation of the factory. Because HB Group had no resources to pay Plaintiff and her coworkers, Plaintiff commenced this putative class action in 2012 seeking to hold Bain liable for losses suffered by the factory’s workers as a result of the sale and liquidation. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely under the relevant three-year statute of limitations. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no basis to conclude that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case. View "Abdallah v. Bain Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Kingdomware is a VA-certified service-disabled veteran-owned small business. The Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. ch. 14A, states that small businesses generally will receive “a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts for property and services for the Government.” Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) are expressly recognized in the Small Business Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. ch. 1, which implements the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. ch. 7. Agency-specific contract regulations are stated in the Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR), 48 C.F.R. ch. 8. In 2012, the VA decided to implement an Emergency Notification Service in medical centers. The VA contracting officer chose to use the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) to procure the needed services, and awarded the contract to a FSS vendor which was not a VOSB. Kingdomware filed a bid protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which rejected the VA’s argument, and issued a recommendation that the VA cancel the award. The VA did not acquiesce. The Claims Court upheld the VA determination, interpreting 38 U.S.C. 8127(c), concerning use of restricted competition, as not creating a mandatory set-aside. The overarching policy of the FAR generally demands ‘full and open competition,” which is deemed satisfied by FSS contracts. The FAR specifies that an agency is encouraged to obtain goods and services from FSS contractors before purchasing from commercial sources, which include privately owned VOSBs and SDVOSBs. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Kingdomware Techs, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court stemmed from litigation involving the dissolution of an anesthesiology practice. Plaintiffs Angel Cancel, M.D., Pravin Jain, M.D., Grace Duque-Dizon, M.D., and Monajna Sanjeev, M.D. were shareholders in the now-defunct Central Georgia Anesthesia Services, P.C. (CGAS), which was at one time the exclusive anesthesiology provider at a Macon hospital owned and operated by The Medical Center of Central Georgia, Inc. According to Plaintiffs' complaint, beginning in 2001, Plaintiffs Cancel and Jain discovered what they believed were billing irregularities within the practice, which they brought to the attention of their fellow shareholders and officials at The Medical Center over a period of time between 2001 and 2003. In 2003, The Medical Center announced its intention to restructure its anesthesiology department, after which CGAS shareholders voted to terminate CGAS' contract with The Medical Center. The Medical Center subsequently began recruitment of physicians for its restructured department and eventually selected several former CGAS physicians to join it. None of the four Plaintiffs were selected, and their affiliation with The Medical Center ended. The Medical Center had entered into an exclusive services contract with The Nexus Medical Group, LLC, which was comprised of the former CGAS physicians, and some non-CGAS physicians, who had been selected by The Medical Center for its restructured anesthesiology department. Alleging that the restructuring at The Medical Center and formation of Nexus were effectuated as part of a scheme to expel Plaintiffs from their practice in retaliation for bringing to light the billing issues, Plaintiffs filed suit seeking damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and other claims. Several years of discovery, and various motions for summary judgment were filed and hearings were held. In 2011, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgment to Defendants on all of Plaintiff Cancel's claims. Cancel appealed this order. Prior to the filing of Cancel's notice of appeal, the trial court issued a second order, denying Nexus' motion for summary judgment as to the remaining Plaintiffs. After the filing of the notice of appeal, the trial court issued the last of its summary judgment orders, denying the motions filed by the CGAS Defendants and The Medical Center Defendants as to the remaining Plaintiffs. Nexus and the CGAS Defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal, challenging the orders denying them summary judgment. A few days later, the Medical Center Defendants filed their own notice of cross-appeal. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeal and cross-appeals and issued a single opinion in which it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against Cancel; reversed the denial of summary judgment against Nexus; and dismissed the cross-appeals of the CGAS Defendants and the Medical Center Defendants. Dismissal of the cross-appeals was premised on the Court of Appeals' conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to consider them because they sought to challenge orders issued after the filing of Cancel's notice of appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court had jurisdiction, and erred in holding otherwise. Accordingly, the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sewell v. Cancel" on Justia Law

Merchants Bank appealed a Circuit Court judgment in favor of Elizabeth Head on Merchants Bank's claim against her alleging breach of a promissory note. After the 2008 promissory note at issue was executed, Merchants Bank wired the $400,000 to Elizabeth's husband, David Head's, personal account. David testified that he then wrote a check distributing the funds to his real-estate-development company, Head Companies, LLC. The Heads renewed the 2008 promissory note in March 2009 and again in March 2010, in August 2010, in February 2011, and, finally, in July 2011. With the exception of the July 2011 renewal, each renewal was signed on page three by both David and Elizabeth. A box on page two was left blank. On the initial version of the July 2011 renewal of the note, however, Elizabeth signed in both the box on page two, indicating that she intended to "give [Merchants Bank] a security interest" in the Heads' personal residence, and at the end of the document on page three. signature on page two of the initial July 2011 note was "a mistake in the nature of a scrivener's error and [Merchants] Bank subsequently had the Heads execute a corrected note, which they did knowingly and voluntarily." Elizabeth presented no evidence to the contrary. The "corrected note" bore the same date as the initial July 2011 note and, like all the previous renewals, was signed by both David and Elizabeth on page three of the document only. The box on page two of the corrected July 2011 note was left blank. The Heads defaulted on the promissory note in April 2012. In September 2012, Merchants Bank sued the Heads, alleging breach of the promissory note and attaching to the complaint the initial July 2011 note as evidence of the debt. David did not answer the complaint, and Merchants Bank obtained a default judgment against him in the amount of $415,142.57 plus interest on the judgment. Elizabeth did answer the complaint, arguing that the note was unenforceable against her because she had signed the initial July 2011 note only to give a security interest in her and David's residence not "for the purpose of agreeing to pay the debt evidenced thereby" and because she had not received consideration for her signature on the note. Merchants Bank moved for a summary judgment against Elizabeth. That motion was denied. After a bench trial in March 2013, the circuit court entered a final judgment in favor of Elizabeth. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Elizabeth renewed her obligations under the 2008 promissory note in the capacity of a maker in July 2011, and that her obligations under the 2008 promissory note were supported by valid consideration. It was undisputed that she and David defaulted on their obligations under the corrected July 2011 note. Thus, Elizabeth was liable to Merchants Bank on its claim of breach of promissory note, and the circuit court erred in entering a judgment in her favor. View "Merchants Bank v. Head " on Justia Law