Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant David Gerasâ contract claim for unpaid commissions and severance against his former employer International Business Machines (IBM). IBM canceled its sales incentive plan under which Geras maintained he accrued sales commissions worth over $100,000. The Court held that under Colorado law, the planâs incentive letter contained an effective disclaimer, and did not manifest an intent to be bound by the terms of its plan.

The owner of patents for computer modems and methods of identifying modems licensed the patents to Rockwell; a related agreement gave Rockwell sub-licensing rights. Rockwell reorganized and assigned its rights. The patent owner acknowledged the assignment. Defendants obtain modem chips from a "spin off" of the companies formed in the Rockwell reorganization. The patent owner sued for infringement. The district court held that the defendants are licensed and entered summary judgment that certain patents are invalid. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, first holding that the assignment was within Rockwell's sub-licensing rights without further consent. Two patent claims were invalid for indefiniteness, but there was a material issue of fact on whether two others were invalid for failure to disclose necessary algorithms.

Plaintiffs, a West Virginia coal sales company, sued Mountain State Carbon, LLC ("Mountain State")and its member companies, on of which was Severstal Wheeling, Inc. ("Severstal Wheeling") in federal district court alleging that Mountain State wrongfully refused to accept coal deliveries in breach of a coal supply agreement with plaintiffs. At issue was whether the district court erred by determining that Severstal Wheeling's principal place of business was in Wheeling, West Virginia for diversity jurisdiction purposes under Hertz Corp. v Friend. The court held that the district court erred by determining that Severstal Wheeling's principal place of business was in Wheeling, West Virginia where the touchstone for determining a corporation's principal place of business for diversity purposes was "the place where the corporation's high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities." Therefore, Dearborn, Michigan was Severstal Wheeling's principal place of business where seven of its eight officers, including its chief executive officer, chief operating officer, and chief financial officer, set corporate policies and oversaw significant corporate decisions out of Dearborn, Michigan.

The defendants (Connelly firm) represented plaintiff in his divorce until July 2005. In July 2006 plaintiff consulted attorney, Downey, who notified the Connelly firm of a malpractice claim in October. In March 2007 plaintiff signed an agreement to file suit, but Downey did not file. In February 2008 Downey notified the plaintiff that he was terminating representation and stated that the limitations period on the malpractice claim ran out before Downey began representation. In 2009 plaintiff filed a malpractice suit against the Connelly firm, under a contract theory, and against Downey. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded claims against Downey, applying the "discovery rule" rather than the occurrence rule to negligence by the Connelly firm. Although plaintiff knew that certain witnesses were not called during a 2004 hearing, he claims that he relied on the firm's assurances and did not have constructive notice of negligence until a July 2005 hearing. The question of when the limitations period began to run was for a jury.

In 1983 the Department of Energy contracted to dispose of spent nuclear fuel from plaintiff's Columbia, Washington facility. The DOE failed to perform and, with its own temporary storage filling up, the plaintiff began work on its own permanent storage facility in 2002. The trial court award of $56.9 million included amounts for modifications to the temporary storage facility, indirect overhead, and financing costs. The Federal Circuit vacated. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for modifications only to the extent that it could prove that, but for the breach, those costs would not have been incurred; the trial court did not require the plaintiff to prove causation. The trial court properly included an award for indirect overhead calculated to a reasonable certainty. The government was entitled to sovereign immunity (28 U.S.C. 2516) with respect to the award of $6 million in interest; the contract did not waive immunity.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.