Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

SEECO, Inc. owned oil-and-gas leases and possessed rights authorizing it to explore for and develop minerals from several tracts of land. SEECO filed an interpleader action to determine the ownership of the oil, gas, and minerals in the land. Appellee requested that the circuit court quiet title and confirm title in Appellees. Several defendants were named in the action. The circuit court ruled that a 1929 mineral deed, even with a blank left empty in the granting clause, conveyed one hundred percent of the mineral interest in three tracts of land to J.S. Martin. Appellees included the Stanton Group, as Martin's heirs and successors in interest, and SEECO. Appellants appealed, arguing that the 1929 mineral deed was void because the description of the interest was so vague that it was unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the 1929 mineral deed was unambiguous, and the circuit court did not err by refusing to consider the parol evidence of a subsequent 1930 deed. View "Barton Land Servs., Inc. v. SEECO, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Charles Honeycutt was injured in an automobile accident involving a Mississippi state trooper. He sued the state trooper and two automobile-insurance providers, Atlanta Casualty Company and American Premier Insurance Company. The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari, seeking to appeal the grant of summary judgment for American Premier: (1) whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred by finding an insurance agent does not have a duty to explain uninsured-motorist coverage; (2) whether summary judgment was granted improperly. The Supreme Court found that, in order to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of uninsured-motorist coverage (UM coverage), an insurance agent does have a duty to explain UM coverage to the insured. The Court also found that summary judgment was not proper in this case. Thus, the Court reversed both lower courts' judgments and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Honeycutt v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Defendant Halliburton Energy Services hired Plaintiff Edward Flemma to work as a cement equipment operator in Houma, Louisiana, in January of 1982. During his twenty-six years of employment with Halliburton, Flemma was promoted several times and worked for the company in Louisiana, Texas, Angola, and New Mexico. The last position he held was as district manager in Farmington, New Mexico, where he worked from 2006 until the time of his termination in 2008.The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case centered on a conflict of laws issue that requires the Court to determine whether enforcement of an arbitration agreement, formed in the State of Texas, would offend New Mexico public policy to overcome our traditional choice of law rule. Upon review, the Court concluded that the agreement formed in Texas would be unconscionable under New Mexico law, and it therefore violated New Mexico public policy. Thus, the Court applied New Mexico law and concluded that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties because Halliburton's promise to arbitrate was illusory. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Flemma v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc." on Justia Law

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