Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Respondent purchased a luxury motor home manufactured by Appellant and took possession of the motor home despite noticing problems with the motor home during inspection. The motor home subsequently experienced significant electrical problems, and Respondent attempted to revoke her acceptance of the motor home from Appellant. Appellant rejected the revocation. Respondent filed suit against Appellant, asserting causes of action for revocation of acceptance under the Uniform Commercial Code, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The district court found in favor of Respondent and awarded her damages that included the purchase price of the motor home. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment but reversed the award of attorney fees, holding (1) Respondent was entitled to revoke acceptance of the motor home where privity existed between Respondent and Appellant because Appellant interjected himself into the sales process and had direct dealings with Respondent to ensure completion of the transaction; and (2) the district court did not err in awarding incidental and consequential damages but abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees. View " Newmar Corp. v. McCrary" on Justia Law

Steven Sheeder and Barlett Grain Co. entered into oral agreements for the sale of grain. The parties later confirmed the agreement with a signed, written document containing an arbitration clause that was not part of the oral agreements. After Bartlett requested adequate assurance of performance and Sheeder did not provide such assurance, thus repudiating the contracts, Bartlett filed a complaint against Sheeder with the National Grain Feed Association (NGFA). Sheeder failed to sign an arbitration contract as required by NGFA arbitration rules, and NGFA entered a default judgment for Bartlett for breach of contract. Bartlett subsequently filed an application for confirmation of the arbitration award. The district court denied the application, concluding that there was no enforceable agreement between the parties to arbitrate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Bartlett and Sheeder entered into written agreements to arbitrate because the parties' oral agreements were modified by signed writings including agreements to arbitrate; and (2) the written agreements between Sheeder and Bartlett were not unconscionable.View "Barlett Grain Co. v. Sheeder" on Justia Law

Construction Company contracted with Subcontractor for construction of elements of an HVAC system. As partial collateral for a revolving line of credit, Subcontractor assigned to Bank its right to receive payment under the contract with Construction Company. Construction Company instead made twelve payments to Subcontractor. Subcontractor subsequently ceased business operations, leaving an outstanding debt to Bank on its line of credit. Bank filed an action against Construction Company for breach of contract and violation of the UCC. A jury found (1) Construction Company liable on both counts for ten of the twelve checks that it had delivered to Subcontractor, and (2) Bank was estopped from recovering with respect to the final two checks. The judge entered judgment on the statutory claim in the amount of $3,015,000, the full face value of the ten checks. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial judge (1) properly entered judgment on Bank's statutory claim in the amount of the wrongfully midirected payments; but (2) erred in denying the bank's motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to the final two checks, as there was insufficient evidence to support Construction Company's defense of estoppel. View "Reading Coop. Bank v. Constr. Co." on Justia Law

Premier Capital, LLC was in the business of debt acquisition, management, and collection. On July 3, 2007, Premier filed an action in the superior court alleging that it was the current holder of a sealed promissory note from Max Zeller Furs, Inc., executed on September 10, 1987, and that KMZ, Inc. was liable on the note as the successor in interest. The superior court granted summary judgment for KMZ on the ground that Premier's complaint was not timely filed under the six-year statute of limitations set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, 3-118. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) although the statute does apply to actions on a sealed promissory note, it only applies to causes of action accruing after its enactment in 1998; and (2) because Premier's cause of action accrued before the statute was enacted, and the note upon which Premier filed suit was executed under seal, Premier timely commenced its action against KMZ under the twenty-year statute of limitations governing actions on contracts under seal set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, 1. Remanded.View "Premier Capital, LLC v. KMZ, Inc." on Justia Law

Gladys Garner and Randolph Scott defaulted on their respective automobile loan agreements. Both contracts were governed by the provisions of the Creditor Grantor Closed End Credit Act of the Commercial Law Article (CLEC). The contracts were later assigned to Ally Financial, Inc., Nuvell National Auto Finance, and Nuvell Financial Services (collectively, GMAC). GMAC repossessed both vehicles and informed the debtors that the vehicles would be sold at a "public auction." Both cars were later sold. The debtors filed separate complaints against GMAC alleging, in part, that GMAC violated the CLEC because the sales of their cars were in reality "private sales," requiring GMAC to provide a detailed post-sale disclosure to them under the CLEC, which GMAC had not done. The federal district court combined the cases and granted summary judgment for GMAC, concluding the sales were "public auctions" because they were both widely advertised and open to the public for competitive bidding. The federal appellate court then certified an issue for clarification to the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Court answered that the auctions were in reality "private sales" because attendance was limited to those who paid a refundable $1,000 cash deposit.View "Gardner v. Ally Fin., Inc." on Justia Law

Edgewater Growth Capital Partners (Edgewater), a private equity firm, invested in several businesses and put them together in one company called Pendum. Soon after the merger, Pendum began to fail to comply with the covenants it made to its creditors. Eventually, a majority of the senior debt was purchased by affiliates of H.I.G. Capital (collectively, HIG). By this time, Pendum was insolvent. Pendum was eventually sold at an open auction by HIG. Edgewater filed suit, claiming that the sale process was commercially unreasonable and thus a violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The Court of Chancery rejected Edgewater's UCC claim and its other attacks on the sale process and, because Edgewater's claims were primarily motivated by its desire to avoid its $4 million guaranty, held that Edgewater was contractually obligated to pay HIG's attorneys' fees in defending against Edgewater's claims.View "Edgewater Growth Capital Partners LP v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

Consolidated Grain maintains a grain elevator in La Salle County, sold Rogowski’s crops, and gave him the proceeds by checks paid directly to him. The bank had lent money to Rogowski for which he signed a note and granted the bank a security interest in his crops and any proceeds of their sale. The bank notified Consolidated of its lien by two written notices, one covering crop years 2004 and 2005 and the other covering years 2005 and 2006. The notices listed as covered agricultural commodities “all grain on hand, all growing crops,” without listing their amount or location. The bank obtained a deficiency judgment against Rogowski in 2008, which remains unsatisfied, then sought payment from Consolidated. The trial court ruled in favor of the bank. The appellate court reversed and the supreme court affirmed. The Federal Food Security Act of 1985 provides how notices of security interests are to be worded and provides that there must be a statement of “each county or parish in which the farm products are produced or located,” The court rejected a “substantial compliance” argument and held that the notices were insufficient for failing to strictly comply with the Act. View "State Bank of Cherry v. CGB Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Shipper engaged Common Carrier to transport computer equipment belonging to Company. Company claimed the shipment was damaged on arrival, and Common Carrier refused to pay the amount that Company claimed Common Carrier had agreed to settle the claim for. Company asserted a claim against Shipper, whose Insurer paid Company. As subrogee, Insurer sued Common Carrier for breach of the settlement agreement. Insurer avoided removal to federal court by not asserting a cargo-damage claim, but, on remand, amended its petition to assert one. Common Carrier contended the cargo-damage claim was barred by limitations because Insurer filed it more than four years after Common Carrier rejected Company's claim. Insurer argued the cargo-damage claim related back to its original action for breach of the settlement agreement and thus was timely filed. The trial court agreed and rendered judgment against Common Carrier. The court of appeals held the cargo-damage claim did not relate back and was therefore barred by limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Insurer, holding that Insurer's cargo-damage claim was not barred by limitations, as the cargo-damage claim and breach-of-settlement claim both arose out of the same occurrence and, therefore, the relation-back doctrine applied.View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Daybreak Express, Inc." on Justia Law

Alpine Vision entered into loan agreements with Prinsburg State Bank's predecessor in interest. Several individuals (Guarantors) executed personal guarantees for the loans. Knighton Optical subsequently purchased Alpine Vision and defaulted on the loans. Prinsburg sued the Guarantors to recover the balance. Prinsburg then sold the collateral but did not apply the sale's proceeds to the outstanding balance of the loans. The Guarantors objected to the sale. After the district court denied all but one of Prinsburg's claims on summary judgment, the parties stipulated to a list of statements consistent with the district court's findings and conclusions, and additionally to a statement that resolved the remaining claim in favor of the Guarantors. The district court accepted the parties' stipulations and summarily denied all of Prinsburg's claims. The court of appeals declined to consider Prinsburg's arguments on appeal, concluding that the parties' stipulations unambiguously resolved the case and precluded appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that, because Prinsburg stipulated to the district court's resolution of this case, it was estopped from challenging that resolution on appeal. View "Prinsburg v. Abundo" on Justia Law

Respondents brought an action against Appellants, alleging breach of contract and fraud- and tort-based claims based on their purchase of two furniture stores from Appellants. The district court entered judgment for Respondents. The court allowed Respondents to rescind the agreement and awarded them damages. Although they appealed the judgment, Appellants did not obtain a stay of execution. Thus, despite the pending appeal, Respondents obtained a writ of execution on the judgment, allowing them to execute against one appellant's personal property. Respondents subsequently purchased Appellants' rights and interests in the district court action. Respondents moved to substitute as real parties in interest and dismiss the appeal on the basis that they acquired Appellants' claims and defenses at the sheriff's sale. The Supreme Court denied Respondents' motion, holding that Nevada's judgment execution statutes do not include the right to execute on a party's defenses to an action, as permitting a judgment creditor to execute on a judgment in such a way would cut of a debtor's defenses in a manner inconsistent with due process principles.View "Butwinick v. Hepner" on Justia Law