Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Stewart Dubose took over Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. from his father, John Dubose Sr., and sought to increase the company's cash flow by engaging Commercial Resources, Inc. for an accounts receivable line of credit. Stewart personally guaranteed the debt. Commercial Resources advanced over two million dollars to Radco, but payments ceased in 2015. John Dubose later took control of Radco and began liquidating its assets. Stewart and John settled a separate dispute, agreeing to sell Radco to Dynasty Energy Services, LLC, which assumed Radco's liabilities.Commercial Resources filed a lawsuit against Radco, Stewart, and Dynasty for the outstanding debt. Radco and Dynasty counterclaimed, alleging various defenses and claims against Commercial Resources. The case proceeded to trial, where the court granted a directed verdict against Radco and Stewart, finding them liable for the debt. The jury found Dynasty liable for $448,528.60 but awarded zero damages against Radco and Stewart. The trial court later amended the judgment to hold Radco, Stewart, and Dynasty jointly liable for the debt.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court found no error in the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment dismissing Radco and Dynasty's affirmative defenses due to their delay in pursuing them. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to admit parol evidence, finding the Purchase Agreement ambiguous. The court affirmed the directed verdict against Radco and Stewart, agreeing that Stewart had authority to enter the agreement and that Radco ratified it. The court found no error in the jury instructions or the trial court's denial of post-trial motions. The court also upheld the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to Commercial Resources, finding it appropriate under the contractual provisions. View "Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. v. Commercial Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Six4Three, LLC developed an app called "Pikinis" that allowed users to search for photos of people in bathing suits on Facebook. Six4Three sued Facebook, Inc. and six individuals, alleging a "bait-and-switch" scheme where Facebook initially provided developers with access to data but later restricted it. Six4Three claimed this restriction harmed their business.The case began in April 2015, with Six4Three filing against Facebook. Facebook responded with demurrers, leading to multiple amended complaints. The trial court allowed new causes of action but not new defendants. Six4Three filed a third amended complaint and sought to add individual defendants through a writ of mandate. The trial court sustained some demurrers and granted summary adjudication on certain damages. Six4Three's fourth amended complaint included eight causes of action against Facebook. Facebook filed an anti-SLAPP motion, and the trial court initially denied it as untimely but granted the individual defendants' anti-SLAPP motion. On appeal, the denial of Facebook's motion was affirmed, but the individual defendants' motion was remanded for reconsideration.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering Facebook's untimely anti-SLAPP motion after granting the individual defendants' motion. The court also held that Six4Three failed to demonstrate the commercial speech exception to the anti-SLAPP statute and did not show a probability of prevailing on its claims. The court affirmed the trial court's orders granting the anti-SLAPP motions and awarding $683,417.50 in attorney fees to the defendants. The court concluded that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred Six4Three's non-contract claims and that Six4Three did not show a probability of prevailing on its breach of contract claim. View "Six4Three v. Facebook" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between several car dealers (Thornhill Auto Group, Moses Ford, and Astorg Ford of Parkersburg) and Ford Motor Company. The dealers had renovated their facilities to meet Ford's Trustmark standards under a voluntary Facility Assistance Program, which provided matching funds up to $750,000. These renovations included specific franchisor image elements required and approved by Ford. Later, Ford introduced the Lincoln Commitment Program (LCP), which offered additional incentives for dealers who constructed exclusive Lincoln facilities, known as Vitrine facilities. The dealers did not meet the new LCP standards and thus did not receive the full incentives.The dealers filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, arguing that Ford's actions violated West Virginia Code section 17A-6A-10(1)(i). This statute prohibits manufacturers from requiring dealers to replace or substantially alter franchisor image elements installed within the preceding ten years if those elements were required and approved by the manufacturer. The district court found that the issue was a question of first impression and certified the question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the ten-year grandfather clause in West Virginia Code section 17A-6A-10(1)(i) applies to the dealers. The Court found that the dealers' renovations under the Facility Assistance Program, which included franchisor image elements required and approved by Ford, fell within the statute's protection. Therefore, Ford could not require the dealers to replace or substantially alter those elements within ten years of their installation. The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "West Virginia Automobile and Truck Dealers' Association v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Golden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC, purchased an underground storage tank from Modern Welding Company of California, Inc. in 2008, which came with a one-year express warranty. In 2016, Golden Gate discovered a crack in the tank and sought replacement under the warranty, but Modern refused, citing the expired warranty. Golden Gate sued Modern, among others, initially for negligence and breach of express warranty, later amending the complaint to include a breach of implied warranty claim.The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County granted summary judgment in favor of Modern, finding that both the express and implied warranty claims were time-barred. The court also awarded Modern attorney fees and costs. Golden Gate appealed, arguing that the discovery rule should toll the statute of limitations for the implied warranty claim.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that discovery tolling does not apply to breach of implied warranty claims under the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court emphasized that NRS 104.2725(2) specifies that a cause of action for breach of warranty accrues upon delivery of the goods, regardless of the buyer's knowledge of the breach. Therefore, Golden Gate's implied warranty claim, filed in 2019, was time-barred as the statute of limitations expired in 2012.Additionally, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's award of attorney fees to Modern. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, including the summary judgment and the post-judgment award of attorney fees. View "Golden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC v. Modern Welding Co. of California, Inc." on Justia Law

DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC and DCA Capitol Hill SNF, LLC (collectively, “DCA”) leased a property from Capitol Hill Group (“CHG”) in Northeast Washington, DC, to operate a long-term acute care hospital and skilled nursing facility. In 2015, DCA began withholding rent payments, claiming dissatisfaction with CHG’s installation of a new HVAC system and generator. CHG sued for breach of contract, and DCA counterclaimed for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and fraud, alleging misrepresentations by CHG.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to CHG on DCA’s fraud counterclaims related to pre-lease representations, citing the lease’s integration clauses. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of CHG on its breach-of-contract claim and DCA’s counterclaims, finding that CHG had fulfilled its obligations regarding the HVAC system and generator work. The court also awarded CHG attorneys’ fees based on a provision in the lease.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings. The appellate court held that DCA’s fraud claims related to pre-lease representations failed as a matter of law because DCA’s reliance on the alleged misrepresentations was unreasonable. The court also concluded that CHG had not breached the lease, as the term “new HVAC system” did not include distribution components, and CHG had fulfilled its generator-related obligations by replacing one generator. The court upheld the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to CHG, finding no abuse of discretion.The case was remanded to the trial court to consider whether to award CHG attorneys’ fees associated with the appeal. View "DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC v. Capitol Hill Group" on Justia Law

The case involves a business venture between W.R. Cobb Company (Cobb) and V.J. Designs LLC (VJ Designs) to sell diamond products under the Forevermark brand. Cobb, unable to secure a license directly from Forevermark, entered into an agreement with VJ Designs, an existing Forevermark licensee, to form a new company, WR Cobb/VJ LLC (the Joint Entity). The agreement stipulated that the Joint Entity would operate under the Forevermark license. However, VJ Designs could not transfer its Forevermark rights without Forevermark's written consent. The venture quickly fell apart, and Cobb sued VJ Designs and its owner, Benjamin Galili, to recover funds paid under the agreement, alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island held a two-day bench trial and ruled in favor of VJ Designs and Galili on all claims. The court found that VJ Designs did not breach the contract or misrepresent any material facts. Cobb appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not rescinding the agreement and not holding Galili personally liable for fraud and misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that VJ Designs did not breach the contract by failing to assign the Forevermark license to the Joint Entity upon execution of the agreement. The court found no provision in the agreement requiring immediate transfer of the license and noted that the parties understood Forevermark's consent was necessary. The court also rejected Cobb's claims of fraud and misrepresentation, finding no evidence of material misrepresentation by VJ Designs or Galili. Additionally, the court dismissed Cobb's mutual mistake theory as it was not pled in the complaint and was raised too late in the proceedings. View "W.R. Cobb Company v. VJ Designs, LLC" on Justia Law

Daniel Genho and Riverdale Hot Springs, LLC had a dispute over payment for construction work Genho performed at Riverdale Resort. Genho was not a registered contractor at the start of the project but became registered midway through. Riverdale refused to pay Genho and prevented him from retrieving his tools and materials. Genho filed a Mechanic’s and Materialmen’s Lien and sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, conversion, and to foreclose on the lien.The District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of Idaho granted Riverdale’s motion for a directed verdict on the breach of contract claim but denied it on the other claims. The court found that there were two separate transactions: one before and one after Genho became a registered contractor. The court allowed the jury to consider the unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, conversion, and lien foreclosure claims. The jury found in favor of Genho, awarding him $295,568, which was later reduced to $68,681. The district court also awarded attorney fees to Genho.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision in part and reversed it in part. The court held that equitable remedies are available under the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA) for work performed after a contractor becomes registered, provided the work is severable from the unregistered work. The court affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on the unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and lien foreclosure claims but reversed the award of attorney fees for the conversion claim, as it was not based on a commercial transaction. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees for the foreclosure action under Idaho Code section 45-513. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. The judgment was vacated and remanded for modification consistent with the opinion. View "Genho v. Riverdale Hot Springs, LLC" on Justia Law

Windy Cove, Inc., HB Fuels, Inc., and Staffing and Management Group, Inc. (collectively “Windy Cove”) are gasoline dealers who own Mobil-branded stations in southern California. In 2012, they entered into a 15-year exclusive fuel supply agreement with Circle K Stores Inc. as required by the agreement under which they purchased their gas stations from ExxonMobil. Windy Cove alleged that Circle K did not set gasoline prices in good faith under this exclusive distributorship contract.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Circle K. The court found that the prices charged by Circle K were within the range of those charged by its competitors, including at least one refiner, and thus were set in good faith under California Commercial Code § 2305(2). Windy Cove failed to provide evidence that Circle K's prices were discriminatory or commercially unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that Circle K’s prices were presumptively set in good faith because the contract had a “price in effect” term. The court noted that the safe harbor provision under Uniform Commercial Code § 2-305, which is codified as California Commercial Code § 2305(2), presumes good faith if the prices are within the range of those charged by competitors. The court found that Circle K’s prices were lower than at least one refiner, thus falling within the range of prices charged by competitors. Windy Cove’s arguments regarding Circle K’s use of a non-industry-standard pricing formula and higher prices compared to other wholesalers did not rebut the presumption of good faith. The court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate and affirmed the district court’s decision. View "WINDY COVE, INC. V. CIRCLE K STORES INC." on Justia Law

Two Massachusetts-based Volvo dealers filed a lawsuit against Volvo Car USA, Volvo Car Financial Services, and Fidelity Warranty Services, alleging violations of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93B. The dispute centers on Volvo-branded Prepaid Maintenance Program (PPM) contracts, which allow customers to prepay for future maintenance services at a discounted rate. Fidelity administers these contracts, which the dealers sell to their customers. The dealers claimed that the defendants were underpaying them for the parts and labor costs incurred in servicing these PPM contracts.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard cross-motions for summary judgment from both parties. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that entities like Fidelity are not regulated by the relevant provisions of Chapter 93B. The court denied the dealers' motion for summary judgment, leading the dealers to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision, but for a different reason. The appellate court held that the dealers' sale and service of the Volvo PPM are not franchise obligations under Chapter 93B. The court found that the Retailer Agreement between the dealers and Volvo USA did not obligate the dealers to sell or service the Volvo PPM. The court also noted that the dealers had the discretion to sell various financial products, including the Volvo PPM, and that servicing the PPM was not a material term of the Retailer Agreement. Therefore, Chapter 93B did not require Fidelity to reimburse the dealers at the statutory rates. View "Colony Place South, Inc. v. Volvo Car USA, LLC" on Justia Law

VFS Leasing Co. ("VFS") leased trucks to Time Definite Leasing, LLC ("TDL"), which insured the trucks with Markel American Insurance Company ("Markel American"). Markel American issued joint checks to VFS and TDL for insurance claims, but TDL cashed the checks without VFS's endorsement and kept the proceeds. VFS sued Markel American for breach of contract, claiming it was owed the funds from the joint checks.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of VFS, holding that Markel American breached the insurance contract by failing to ensure VFS received the funds. The court found that under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Markel American's obligation was not discharged because the checks were not properly endorsed by both co-payees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether Markel American's obligation to VFS was discharged when the drawee bank improperly accepted the joint checks. The court concluded that under Florida Statute § 673.4141(3), a drawer's obligation is discharged when a bank accepts a jointly issued check, regardless of whether both co-payees endorsed it. The court noted that while VFS could pursue a conversion claim against the bank, Markel American's obligation was discharged upon the bank's acceptance of the checks.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of VFS and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VFS Leasing Co. v. Markel Insurance Company" on Justia Law