Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Gas producers that lease land from Alaska must pay royalties calculated on the value of the gas produced from the leased area. The royalty may be calculated in one of two methods: the âhigher ofâ pricing or contract pricing. âHigher ofâ pricing is the default method of calculating royalties and is calculated using market data and the prices of other producers. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) usually does not calculate the royalty payments under âhigher ofâ pricing until years after production. Under contract pricing, the lesseeâs price at which it sells gas is used to determine the royalty payment. Appellant Marathon Oil requested contract pricing from 2008 onward and sought retroactive application of contract pricing for 2003-2008. The DNR approved contract pricing from 2008 onward but denied the retroactive application. The superior court affirmed the DNRâs decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Marathon argued that the statute that governs contract pricing permitted retroactive application of contract pricing. Upon review of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court concluded that though the statute was ambiguous, it would defer to the DNRâs interpretation. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior courtâs decision to uphold the DNRâs order.

Appellant sued appellees for breach of contract where the parties entered into a contract for appellant to build a house for appellees. After trial, the jury found that appellees did not breach the contract and awarded no actual damages but $16,552 in attorney fees. Appellant appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to amend the verdict to strike the attorney fee award on the grounds that it was improper under OCGA 13-6-11. The court held that, to the extent the attorney fee award was based on OCGA 13-6-11, the Court of Appeals erred in relying on waiver to affirm the award. The court also held that, because the Court of Appeals did not address appellees' alternative argument that the award was properly based on the parties contract rather than OCGA 13-6-11, the court declined to address the alternative argument. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded.

Plaintiff sued defendant asserting claims of breach of contract and various business torts in connection with defendant's alleged wrongful termination of plaintiff's employment affiliation with defendant. Plaintiff appealed from summary judgment in favor of defendant on one of its counterclaims against plaintiff for nonrepayment of the outstanding balance of a loan for which he had given a promissory note. The court held that the district court's order of summary judgment was inappropriate and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the determination that the promissory note was independent of the promises made by defendant in the Affiliation Agreements would involve consideration of defendant's promises underlying plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination and of the relationships among those promises. Therefore, the court would be required to consider many of the same issues that would need to be considered in any appeal from a final judgment adjudicating plaintiff's claims.

This case arose from a boundary dispute between R and B Farms and Cedar Valley Acres. The disputed property, a parcel of cropland located north of a fence, was encompassed by a legal description deeded to Cedar Valley under the agreement conveying the land. R and B, however, claimed that all parties to the contract decided the fence line would serve as the boundary for the property. R and B filed suit against Cedar Valley, alleging among other causes of action mutual recognition and acquiescence. In its complaint R and B did not explicitly plead mutual mistake as a theory of recovery. The district court ultimately found in favor of R and B on the theory of mutual mistake and reformed the contract on that basis. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that because the facts pleaded by R and B were sufficient to place the theory of mutual mistake at issue and because mutual mistake was tried by the implied consent of the parties, the claim of mutual mistake was properly before the district court. However, because the record did not support a finding of mutual mistake, the Court held the district court erred in reforming the contract.

Chilkoot Lumber Company, a commercial landlord (Chilkoot) and its tenant, Rainbow Glacier Seafood (Rainbow) resolved their lease dispute by settlement and entered the terms of the settlement on the record at trial. Rainbow did not follow through with its duties under the settlement agreement. After the time for performance by Rainbow had expired, Chilkoot moved the court to enforce the agreement. The superior court denied the motion to enforce. On reconsideration, the parties tentatively agreed to reinstate the settlement agreement with new deadlines for performance. When they could not agree on new deadlines, the superior court entered an order that enforced the settlement agreement as modified by Rainbowâs proposed deadlines. Chilkoot subsequently violated the order, and the superior court ordered it to pay $1,000 per day it violated the agreement. Chilkoot appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the superior court erred by imposing its own deadlines and sanctioning Chilkoot $1,000 per day. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court reversed the superior courtâs order. The Court held it was an error for the lower court to conclude that the parties had not reached a settlement agreement and to deny Chilkootâs motion to enforce the agreement. Furthermore, the Court found that the courtâs sanctions against Chilkoot were "coercive and remedial, rather than punitive." The Court reversed the superior courtâs order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 2006, appellantâs vehicle was stolen from respondent hotelâs valet parking lot. Appellantâs insurer issued a check to appellant for the cost of the vehicle but not including the cost of customizations. Appellant filed a lawsuit in district court against respondent, alleging negligence and breach of a bailment contract and seeking damages exceeding $10,000. The district court determined that Nev. Rev. Stat. 651.101(1) shielded respondent from liability and entered summary judgment in favor of respondent. Appellant appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed. The Court found as a threshold matter appellant to be a real party in interest with standing to sue because appellant was not fully compensated by his insurer for his losses and thus the principle of total subrogation did not apply. The Court also held that Nev. Rev. Stat. 651.101(1) did not protect respondent against liability arising out of the theft of appellantâs vehicle because the statute, which limits the liability of hotels for the theft or destruction of any property brought by a patron upon the premises or "left in a motor vehicle upon the premises," unambiguously places motor vehicles outside of its scope.

The decedent, killed in a motorcycle accident in 2008, was covered by a life insurance policy, subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1101. The insurance company denied a claim by the decedent's widow, claiming that the decedent's anti-coagulant medications contributed to his death so that it fell within an exclusion for medical conditions. The district court concluded that the policy gave the company discretionary authority to determine eligibility and entered summary judgment in the company's favor. The Third Circuit reversed in part and remanded. Deferential review was not appropriate, given the language of the policy. The words "proof of loss satisfactory to Us," surrounded by procedural requirements, do not notify participants that the company has the power to re-define the entire concept of a covered loss on a case-by-case basis. The district court's interpretation of the medical exclusion, in favor of the company, was correct; the clause was not ambiguous.

In 2005, Southwest Emergency Physicians, Inc. (SWEP) and Alldredge entered into a contract under which SWEP's physician-employees staffed Lewis-Gale's emergency department. The contract provided that it could be terminated by either party without cause. In 2008, Alldredge became involved with some signatories to a letter addressed to the Lewis-Gale administration voicing work-related concerns. Certain Lewis-Gale administrators expressed concern that Alldredge had become involved in the hospital's personnel matters, and SWEP later terminated Alldredge's employment. Alldredge sued Lewis-Gale for tortious interference with her employment contract with SWEP, and the circuit court found in favor of Alldredge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the administrators' statements of intimidation and animus toward Allredge did not rise as a matter of law to the level of "improper methods"- such as fraud, deceit, or defamation - necessary to establish a cause of action for tortious interference with contract expectancy when a contract is terminable at will.

Brenda Britt obtained a new car from a car dealership after completing and signing, among other documents, a buyer's order and a retail installment sales contract. After failing to obtain financing for the sale of the car, the dealership repossessed and disposed of the vehicle without providing prior notice to Britt. Britt filed a warrant in debt against the dealership in the city general district court, alleging the dealership violated Article Nine of the UCC, which requires a secured party, after repossessing collateral, to provide the debtor with notice before disposing of the collateral. The district court and trial court both found in favor of Britt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the dealership was a secured creditor and Britt a debtor under Article Nine. Therefore, the dealership failed to provide Britt the required notice of disposition following repossession required by Article Nine.

Robert Bennett signed a one-year employment agreement with Sage. That summer, Bennett communicated to Sage that he would require an increase of almost triple his salary or he would transition out of the company. When Sage did not meet his demands, Bennett continued working for Sage but pursued other employment opportunities. Bennett's employment was terminated that fall. Bennett filed a complaint against Sage seeking severance payments. During trial, the circuit court granted Sage's motion to amend its pleadings to include a defense of repudiation and submitted the issue of repudiation to the jury. The jury ruled against Bennett, and Bennett appealed. At issue was whether a party may repudiate his contractual duties after performance has commenced. The Supreme Court held that (1) repudiation may apply to a contract that has been partially performed when future obligations under the contract are repudiated, and (2) the circuit court properly rejected Bennett's argument that he did not repudiate the contract as a matter of law. Based on the evidence, the jury was entitled to conclude that Bennett's communications while he attempted to transition out of the company constituted a repudiation of his future obligations under the contract.