Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a purchase and sales agreement agreeing to buy Defendant's property and deposited ten percent of the purchase price with Defendant's real estate agent until closing. Defendant signed the agreement but also made certain handwritten alterations to the contract. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging that Defendant's handwritten alterations were material changes that constituted a counter-offer, not an acceptance of Plaintiffs' offer to purchase the property. The jury found there was never a valid contract between the parties and Plaintiffs were entitled to the return of their deposit. The trial court added prejudgment interest to the judgment. Defendant filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs were not entitled to interest on their deposit. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the award of prejudgment interest in this case, holding that Plaintiffs' deposit did not fall within the category of "pecuniary damages" under R.I. Gen. Laws 9-21-10(a), and therefore, Plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest. View "Andrews v. Plouff" on Justia Law

Wyatt Energy unilaterally terminated an agreement with Motiva Enterprises granting Motiva exclusive use of logistical and storage services provided by a gasoline distribution terminal owned by Wyatt after Motiva purchased a competing terminal owned by Cargill. Wyatt subsequently sold its terminal to Williams Energy without requiring Williams to assume Wyatt's obligations under the agreement with Motiva. Wyatt then brought this breach of contract action against Motiva. Motiva counterclaimed for breach of contract. Wyatt asserted a special defense of illegality premised on purported antitrust violations arising out of Motiva's purchase of the Cargill terminal. The trial court held in favor of Motiva, and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed Wyatt's appeal, holding that Wyatt's claim that the trial court incorrectly defined the relevant product and geographic markets was moot because, even if Wyatt's proposed market definitions were assumed to be correct, Wyatt could not be afforded any practical relief. View "Wyatt Energy, Inc. v. Motiva Enters., LLC" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the interplay between the Subcontractors' and Suppliers' Payment Protection Act (SPPA), the Tort Claims Act (TCA), and the Court's opinion in "Sloan Construction Co. v. Southco Grassing, Inc. (Sloan I)," (659 S.E.2d 158 (2008)). When subcontractors Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. and Tindall Corporation (collectively Respondents) did not receive full payment from the general contractor Gilbert Group, LLC for their work on a public construction project for the City of Union, they filed suit, asserting the City failed to comply with the statutory bond requirements pertaining to contractors working with subcontractors on public projects found in the SPPA. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the City. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals decision, and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Furthermore, the Court clarified "Sloan I" and held that a governmental entity may be liable to a subcontractor only for breach of contract for failing to comply with the SPPA bonding requirements. View "Shirley's Iron Works v. City of Union" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted allocatur to determine whether the Superior Court erred by declining to validate a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement, solely because the restrictive covenant was not expressly referenced in an initial offer letter which conditioned employment on the execution of the employment agreement. Upon concluding the Superior Court did not properly characterize the offer letter, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pulse Technologies v. Notaro" on Justia Law

Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C. (CIM) and TC Group, L.L.C. (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against defendant-appellant National Industries Group (NIG). Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment to enforce the terms of a forum selection clause contained in a Subscription Agreement between Carlyle Capital Corporation, Ltd. (CCC) and NIG. Specifically, they sought an injunction against NIG from proceeding with litigation that it filed against CCC in Kuwait in December, 2009. The Court of Chancery entered a Default Judgment against NIG. As part of the Default Judgment, the Court of Chancery issued an anti-suit injunction. NIG filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment and to Dismiss the Complaint approximately one year later. The Court of Chancery denied the motion. NIG raised several related issues on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) that the Court of Chancery erred in refusing to vacate the Default Judgment because the Default Judgment was void due to lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction; (2) that the Court of Chancery's limited subject matter jurisdiction did not encompass actions for which a remedy at law is available or from which no irreparable harm could result; and (3) that the Court of Chancery erred in refusing to vacate the Default Judgment because, in so doing, the court effectively denied NIG the opportunity to litigate its claims against Carlyle. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that all of NIG's claims of error were all without merit, and affirmed the Court of Chancery's judgment. View "National Industries Group v. Carlyle Investment Management, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Law Firm sued Client for breach of contract, alleging that Client failed to pay its legal fees. A jury found that Client breached the agreement and awarded Law Firm damages, $150,000 as reasonable attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. To suspend enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, Client deposited a cashier's check with the trial court, including the breach of contract damages and pre- and post-judgment interest. The trial court subsequently ordered Client to supplement the deposit to cover the attorney's fees award. The court of appeals denied Client appellate relief, concluding that attorney's fees are both compensatory damages and costs for the purpose of suspending enforcement of a judgment. The Supreme Court conditionally granted Client mandamus relief, holding that attorney's fees are neither compensatory damages nor costs for purposes of suspending enforcement of a money judgment, and directed the trial court to vacate its order and refund and monies overpaid by Client. View "In re Nalle Plastics Family Ltd. P'ship" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs leased an apartment from Defendant for thirteen months. Before the lease term expired, a dispute arose between the parties. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging breach of the terms of the lease, negligence, and negligence per se. The justice court found in favor of Plaintiffs. Defendant appealed, seeing a trial de novo. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in Plaintiffs' favor on their breach of lease claim and awarded them damages, costs, and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add a claim that had not been pled during the justice court proceedings; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion in limine to prohibit any reference to the testimony and evidence presented during the justice court proceedings; and (3) because the district court's references to the prior proceedings did not suggest that the district court was unduly influenced by the justice court proceedings, Defendant was not denied her right to a trial de novo. View "McDunn v. Arnold" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's young son was injured by an uninsured motorist while he was a passenger in his daycare provider's van. Plaintiff filed a petition on behalf of her son against the daycare provider's insurance company, Shelter Mutual, alleging that her child was an "insured" under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy. The policy defined "insured" to include owners, operators, and other users who exercise physical control of the right of control of the vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment to Shelter. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the uninsured motorist statute requires coverage of all passengers within the definition of "user." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's child was not an insured because (1) Plaintiff's child was not included in the definition of "insured" under the policy itself; (2) the financial responsibility law implies coverage as a matter of law in a policy for owners, operators and users to the extent that liability may be imposed on them under Missouri law for damages arising out of such ownership, operation, or use; and (3) Plaintiff's child did not come within this scope of coverage. View "Steele v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the owners and lessors of royalty rights to natural gas produced in Trumbull and Mahoning Counties in Ohio, filed a putative class-action lawsuit, alleging that three interrelated energy companies that entered into oil and gas leases with plaintiffs deliberately and fraudulently underpaid gas royalties over more than a decade. Plaintiffs asserted breach of contract and five additional tort and quasi-contract claims and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The district court dismissed, holding that the contract claim was time-barred by Ohio’s four-year statute of limitations and that none of the tort and quasi-contract claims were separate and distinct from the underlying contract action because they did not allege any obligations apart from those imposed by the leases. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, finding that the district court failed to consider plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment argument and that allegations regarding due diligence were sufficient to require further analysis. View "Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Appellant, in his capacity as vice-president of Izett Manufacturing, Inc., executed a guaranty in connection with a loan agreement entered into by the company. The loan agreement entitled Izett Manufacturing to borrow up to $50,000 and was secured by a promissory note. The note and the guaranty both were dated 1999, and Appellant personally guarantied the payment of all liabilities under the note. The guaranty included a confession of judgment clause and stated that it was "executed under seal," with the designation "(SEAL)" as part of the signature line. By 2001, the company had borrowed $50,000 under the agreement. At that time, Appellee Osprey Portfolio, LLC purchased the loan and was assigned the note and guaranty. In late 2005, Osprey sent a letter to Izett Manufacturing, declaring the loan to be in default and demanding payment in full. Izett failed to remit payment. More than four years later, Osprey filed a Complaint in Confession of Judgment against Appellant as the guarantor of the loan. The court entered judgment the same day. Thereafter, Appellant filed a Petition to Strike and/or Open Judgment, claiming, in relevant part, that Osprey's action was precluded by Section 5525(a)(8) of the Judicial Code, which establishes a four-year limitation period for "[a]n action upon a contract, obligation or liability founded upon a writing . . .under seal . . ." The Supreme Court allowed this appeal to determine the limitation period that applies to an action on a guaranty executed under seal. Upon review, the Court held that the loan guaranty executed under seal by Appellant was an "instrument in writing under seal" subject to a 20-year limitation period set forth in Section 5529(b)(1) of the Judicial Code. Therefore, the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett" on Justia Law