Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Dan Prue sold his majority interest in DT-Trak Consulting, a medical coding business, for a lump-sum payment and several annual payments. DT-Trak withheld an annual payment, asserting that Prue had violated the parties' stock purchase agreement. The matter proceeded to arbitration. A three-member arbitration panel made an award in Prue's favor. DT-Trak sought to vacated the award, alleging that the arbitrator it selected demonstrated evident partiality and that the panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law were insufficient. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under either the Federal Arbitration Act or South Dakota Arbitration Act, DT-Trak failed to show that the arbitration award should be vacated, as (1) there was no support that any member of the arbitration panel exhibited evident partiality; and (2) the findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the panel were sufficient under the requirements of the agreement.

Petitioners, David and Shirley Finch, appealed from an order entered by the circuit court, which granted summary judgment to Defendant, Inspectech, LLC. The circuit court concluded that, by signing the parties' inspection agreement, which contained a clause entitled "unconditional release and limitation of liability," the Finches had released Inspectech from liability for any defects it failed to report in its inspection of the house the Finches planned to, and ultimately did, purchase. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Inspectech was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon the terms of the parties' inspection agreement and the release language therein because anticipatory releases contained in home inspection contracts are void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of the State.

At issue in this appeal was whether a court should enforce several employees' noncompete agreement transfers by operation of law to the surviving company when the company that was the original party to the agreement merged with another company. Here the trial court concluded that the employees did not intend to make the noncompete agreements assignable to successors such as the surviving company. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that in this case, the language the agreement dictated that the surviving company could not enforce the agreement after the merger as if it had stepped into the shoes of the original company.

In 2001 the Hotel hired plaintiff as a casino worker. Approximately six years into his employment, he filed a charge of sex and age discrimination with the EEOC. In his complaint under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623(d), and Puerto Rico law, he alleges that, shortly after he made these filings, his supervisors embarked on a pattern of retaliation ultimately resulting in his dismissal. He filed a retaliation charge with the EEOC, which issued a right-to-sue letter. Citing two agreements signed by plaintiff, each containing an arbitration clause, the Hotel moved to compel arbitration. Plaintiff argued that the agreements he had signed impermissibly shorten the limitations period, impede public enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, and unduly burden workers' rights. The district court determined that the arbitration clauses were valid and dismissed without prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed, citing the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1-16, and holding that the arbitrator can determine whether Puerto Rico law permits shortening of the limitations period.

Plaintiffs sought damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Hartmann counterclaimed for breach of contract. The parties unsuccessfully exchanged multiple settlement offers. Three days before an agreed-upon discovery deadline, Hartmann notified plaintiffs that it intended to exercise its right to arbitrate as provided by their contract. When plaintiffs failed to respond, Hartmann filed a motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs served discovery responses on Hartmann in accordance with the agreed deadline and continued to seek discovery from Hartmann while the motion was pending. When Hartmann served discovery responses, it stipulated that it was not waiving its right to arbitrate. The court held that Hartmann had waived its right to compel arbitration by obtaining an extension of time within which to file an answer; asserting 10 affirmative defenses and a counterclaim; engaging in a judicial settlement conference and informal efforts to resolve the case; requesting adjustments of the Case Management Order; and serving discovery requests and that those actions prejudiced plaintiffs. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Hartmann’s actions were completely inconsistent with any reliance on its right to arbitration and belated assertion of that right caused plaintiffs actual prejudice in the form of unnecessary delay and expense.

This case arose when Martin Marietta sought to purchase all of Vulcan's outstanding shares (Exchange Offer). At issue was the meaning of confidentiality agreements entered into by both parties. The court found in favor of Vulcan on its counterclaims for breach of the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) (Count I), and the joint defense and confidentiality agreement (JDA)(Count II), and against Martin Marietta on its claim that it did not breach the NDA (Count I). Martin Marietta shall be enjoined for a period of four months from prosecuting a proxy contest, making an exchange or tender offer, or otherwise taking steps to acquire control of Vulcan shares or assets. During that period, it is also enjoined from any further violations of the NDA and JDA. Vulcan shall submit a conforming final judgment within five days, upon approval as to form by Martin Marietta.

RAA appealed from a final judgment of the Superior Court that dismissed its complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). RAA's complaint alleged that Savage told RAA, one of several potential bidders for Savage, at the outset of their discussions that there was "no significant unrecorded liabilities or claims against Savage," but then during RAA's due diligence into Savage, Savage disclosed three such matters, which caused RAA to abandon negotiations for the transactions. The complaint contended that had RAA known of those matters at the outset, it never would have proceeded to consider purchasing Savage. Therefore, according to RAA, Savage should be liable for the entirety of RAA's alleged $1.2 million in due diligence and negotiation costs. The court held that, under Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the non-disclosure agreement (NDA), RAA acknowledged that in the event no final "Sale Agreement" on a transaction was reached, Savage would have no liability, and could not be sued, for any allegedly inaccurate or incomplete information provided by Savage to RAA during the due diligence process. The court also held that RAA could not rely on the peculiar-knowledge exception to support its claims. Finally, the court held that, when Savage and RAA entered into the NDA, both parties knew how the non-reliance clauses had been construed by Delaware courts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff filed suit in Minnesota state court against her mortgage lender, seeking legal and equitable relief from the lender's foreclosure and sale of her home. The court held that, because there was no dispute as to whether the foreclosure was actually postponed, Minn. Stat. 580.07, subdiv. 1 was inapplicable. The court also held that the Minnesota Credit Agreement Statute (MCAS), Minn. Stat. 513.33, subdiv. 2, prohibited the enforcement of an oral promise to postpone a foreclosure sale and that the lender was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim. Finally, the court held that plaintiff did not raise a genuine question of material fact as to whether she detrimentally relied on the lender's promise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on Counts I-V.

Plaintiffs, employees at a defense plant in Arizona, collectively bargained for the right to receive employer-provided healthcare coverage after they retired. At issue was whether those employees, now retirees, were contractually entitled to receive premium-free healthcare coverage until age 65, or whether the contracts on which the retirees relied as providing that entitlement allowed their prior employer to start charging them for their insurance. The court held that Raytheon expressly agreed to provide 100% company-paid healthcare coverage for eligible retirees; that Raytheon's obligation survived the expectation of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs); and that Raytheon's agreed-upon obligation could not be unilaterally abrogated by Raytheon, regardless of the rights Raytheon reserved for itself in Plan documents, because the CBAs did not incorporate the Plans' reservation-of-rights provisions with respect to employer contribution issues, as opposed to issues relating to the provision of monetary or in kind benefits for particular medical services. The court further held that the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiffs' claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages.

Plaintiffs, a majority group of limited partners of Magic 2 x 52 Limited Partnership appealed their post-judgment motion to pierce the corporate veil of several corporate Defendants and to recover punitive damages. The Limited Partners' investment in the Magic partnership did not go as planned, and they initiated this lawsuit, seeking to remove Magic Corporation as the general partner of the partnership and requesting monetary damages. The Limited Partners also sought to pierce the corporate veil of the corporate Defendants to hold Kenneth Herslip personally liable for the corporate Defendants' conduct and to recover punitive damages. May 2010 amended judgment awarded Magic Partnership $146,153.99 against Magic Corporation, B K Properties, and Herslip Construction; awarded Magic Partnership $144,263.80, and prejudgment interest of $77,783.88, against Magic Corporation and Herslip Construction; and awarded Magic Partnership costs and disbursements of $46,201.47 against Magic Corporation, B K Properties, and Herslip Construction. None of the parties appealed from the May 2010 judgment. The Limited Partners' subsequent efforts to collect on the judgment were unsuccessful. In June 2010, both Herslip Construction and Magic Corporation filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7. The district court denied the Limited Partners' post-judgment motion, concluding they had not shown an appropriate basis for granting their request to pierce the corporate veil and to recover punitive damages. The court stated its prior opinion after trial had specifically denied the plaintiffs' requests to pierce the corporate veil and to recover punitive damages with a detailed analysis. The court concluded the May 2010 amended judgment was final as to all issues decided by the court after trial and refused to revisit piercing the corporate veil and punitive damages.