Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Pro-Mark Services, Inc., a general contracting construction company, obtained payment and performance bonds from Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company as required by the Miller Act. To facilitate this, Pro-Mark and other indemnitors entered into a General Indemnity Agreement (GIA) with Hartford, assigning certain rights related to bonded contracts. Later, Pro-Mark entered into two substantial business loan agreements with Capital Credit Union (CCU), secured by most of Pro-Mark’s assets, including deposit accounts. Recognizing potential conflicts over asset priorities, Hartford and CCU executed an Intercreditor Collateral Agreement (ICA) to define their respective rights and priorities in Pro-Mark’s assets, distinguishing between “Bank Priority Collateral” and “Surety Priority Collateral,” and specifying how proceeds should be distributed.After Pro-Mark filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota, CCU placed an administrative freeze on Pro-Mark’s deposit accounts and moved for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its right of setoff against the funds in those accounts. Hartford objected, claiming a superior interest in the funds based on the GIA and ICA. The bankruptcy court held hearings and, after considering the parties’ briefs and stipulated facts, granted CCU’s motion, allowing it to set off the funds. The bankruptcy court found CCU had met its burden for setoff and determined Hartford did not have a sufficient interest in the deposited funds, focusing on the GIA and North Dakota’s Uniform Commercial Code, and not the ICA.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit held that while the bankruptcy court had authority to adjudicate the priority dispute, it erred by failing to analyze the parties’ respective rights under the ICA, which governed the priority of distributions. The Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Capital Credit Union" on Justia Law

Two parties, both experienced in the grocery business, negotiated the sale of a grocery store’s inventory, stock, and equipment for $175,000. The agreement was reached orally and memorialized with a handshake, but no written contract was signed. Following the oral agreement, the buyers took control of the store, closed it for remodeling, met with employees, and were publicly identified as the new owners. However, within two weeks, the buyers withdrew from the deal, citing issues with a third-party wholesaler. The sellers, having already closed the store and lost perishable goods, were unable to find another buyer and subsequently filed suit.The sellers brought ten claims in the Lee County Circuit Court, including breach of contract, estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation. The buyers moved to dismiss, arguing that the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of the oral agreement because the sale involved goods valued over $500 and no signed writing existed. The circuit court agreed, dismissing the contract and estoppel-based claims, as well as the negligent misrepresentation claim, but allowed other claims to proceed. The sellers appealed the dismissal of the contract and estoppel claims.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo. It held that the sellers’ complaint plausibly invoked two exceptions to the Statute of Frauds under Mississippi law: the merchants’ exception and the part-performance exception. The Court found that, at the motion to dismiss stage, it could not determine as a matter of law that no valid contract existed under these exceptions. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of claims (1) through (7) and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Palmer's Grocery Inc. v. Chandler's JKE, Inc." on Justia Law

Three individuals, including the appellant, formed a limited liability company (LLC) to design and sell firearms products, later adding two more members to a second LLC. The first LLC did not have a formal operating agreement, while the second adopted one in early 2019, setting a low company valuation. The appellant’s behavior became erratic and disruptive, leading to accusations against a key business partner and other members, which damaged business relationships and led to the loss of significant contracts. The remaining members of both LLCs unanimously voted to dissociate the appellant, citing his conduct as making it unlawful to continue business with him. The appellant disputed the validity of the operating agreement in the second LLC and challenged the valuation of his interests in both companies, also alleging wrongful dissociation, defamation, and conversion of property.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The court found the appellant was properly dissociated from the first LLC under Montana’s Limited Liability Company Act due to the unanimous vote and the unlawfulness of continuing business with him. It also held that the second LLC’s operating agreement was valid and permitted dissociation by unanimous vote. The court valued the appellant’s interests according to the operating agreement for the second LLC and based on company assets for the first LLC. The court denied the appellant’s motion to extend expert disclosure deadlines and partially denied his motion to compel discovery. It also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the conversion claim, finding no evidence of unauthorized control over the appellant’s property.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court’s rulings on dissociation and valuation regarding the second LLC, as well as the summary judgment on the conversion claim. However, it reversed the valuation of the appellant’s interest in the first LLC, holding that the district court erred by failing to consider the company’s “going concern” value as required by statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Herbert v. Shield Arms" on Justia Law

A Canadian corporation specializing in industrial heaters sought a new supplier and entered negotiations with a South Dakota manufacturer to custom-build 30 heaters. The parties initially agreed to the purchase and sale of 21 units, with a 20% down payment, and later extended the agreement to include the remaining nine units, for a total of 30 heaters at a set price per unit. The manufacturer began production and delivery as payments were made. However, after partial delivery and payment, the buyer stopped making payments, citing performance issues with the heaters and ultimately notified the manufacturer of its intent to terminate the relationship. Despite complaints about the heaters, the buyer did not reject or return any units but continued to accept and sell them until the manufacturer withheld further shipments due to nonpayment.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Day County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for 30 heaters and that the buyer breached the agreement by failing to pay and by terminating the contract. The court also found that the manufacturer had taken reasonable steps to mitigate damages and that the buyer had not properly rejected the goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case de novo. The Supreme Court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for the sale of 30 heaters. However, the Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the alleged defects in the heaters substantially impaired the value of the whole contract, which could excuse the buyer’s nonperformance under the UCC. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding of contract formation, reversed the grant of summary judgment on the breach issue, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence" on Justia Law

Two companies, HBKY and Elk River, each claimed rights to thousands of acres of timber in Kentucky based on their respective contracts with a third party, Kingdom Energy Resources. Kingdom had entered into a timber sales contract with Elk River, allowing Elk River to cut and remove timber from certain land. Separately, Kingdom obtained a $22 million loan from a group of lenders, with HBKY acting as their agent, and mortgaged several properties—including the timber in question—as collateral for the loan. Kingdom later breached both agreements: it ousted Elk River from the land, violating the timber contract, and defaulted on the loan, leaving both HBKY and Elk River with competing claims to the timber.After HBKY secured a judgment in a New York federal court declaring Kingdom in default, it registered the judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and initiated foreclosure proceedings on the collateral, including the timber. Elk River and its president, Robin Wilson, were joined as defendants due to their claimed interest. The district court granted summary judgment to HBKY, finding that Elk River did not obtain title to the timber under its contracts, did not have a superior interest, and was not a buyer in the ordinary course of business under Kentucky law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the loan documents did not authorize a sale of the timber free of HBKY’s security interest, as the mortgage explicitly stated that the security interest would survive any sale. The court also found that Elk River failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its status as a buyer in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of HBKY. View "HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Export, LLC" on Justia Law

Golden View Ready-Mix, LLC (Golden View) supplied concrete to Grangaard Construction, Inc. (Grangaard) for a bridge project. Golden View alleged that Grangaard failed to pay for the concrete, breached the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, and committed fraud. A jury found in favor of Golden View on the breach of contract and good faith claims, awarding damages and punitive damages, but found no liability for fraud. Grangaard appealed the punitive damages award and the decision to submit the fraud issue to the jury.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, McCook County, South Dakota, presided over the case. Grangaard moved for partial summary judgment on the fraud claim, arguing there was no independent tort duty outside the contract. The court denied this motion, allowing the fraud claim to proceed. During the trial, the court permitted the jury to consider punitive damages based on the breach of the implied obligation of good faith, despite Grangaard's objections.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court determined that punitive damages are only recoverable for breaches of obligations not arising from a contract, as per SDCL 21-3-2. The court found that the implied obligation of good faith arises from the contract itself and does not constitute an independent tort that could support punitive damages. Consequently, the court vacated the punitive damages award. However, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment in all other respects, concluding that the error regarding punitive damages did not affect the jury's decision on the breach of contract and good faith claims. View "Goldenview Ready-Mix, LLC v. Grangaard Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

A wholesale food supplier, Vista Food Exchange, Inc. ("Vista"), sued Comercial De Alimentos Sanchez S De R L De C.V. ("Sanchez") for breach of contract, alleging that Sanchez failed to pay for over $750,000 worth of meat products. Vista claimed that Sanchez was required to make payments to Vista's headquarters in New York, but Sanchez contended it had paid the invoices in cash to Vista's salesman, Eduardo Andujo Rascón, in Tijuana, Mexico. Sanchez supported its claim with declarations and documents, including an affidavit from Rascón stating he received the cash payments.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Sanchez, dismissing Vista's breach-of-contract claim. The court found that Sanchez provided unrefuted evidence of cash payments to Rascón, fulfilling its contractual obligations. It also ruled that even if paying Rascón in cash breached the contract, Vista could not show that its damages were proximately caused by the breach because Rascón's theft of the money was unforeseeable. The court dismissed Vista's other claims for breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, citing New York law that forecloses such claims when an enforceable contract exists.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Sanchez's claimed performance, the modification of the contract, and the foreseeability of damages. The appellate court vacated the district court's judgment dismissing Vista's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and remanded the case for trial on those claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Vista's claims for implied contract and promissory estoppel. View "Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Comercial de Alimentos Sanchez" on Justia Law

The City of Fort Collins contracted with Open International, LLC, for software services, which led to mutual breach-of-contract claims. The City also alleged that Open's precontractual statements were negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations. A jury found that Open fraudulently induced the City to enter the contract. The City elected to rescind the contract, and the district court held a bench trial on restitution, ordering a judgment of nearly $20 million against Open.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Open's motions for judgment as a matter of law, which argued that the City’s tort claims were barred by the economic-loss rule and the contract’s merger clause. The court also denied Open's motion to require the City to elect a remedy before trial. The jury found in favor of the City on the fraudulent inducement claim, and the City chose rescission, leading to the dismissal of the jury and a bench trial on restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings and the jury’s verdict. The court held that the City’s tort claims were not barred by the economic-loss rule or the contract’s merger clause. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of fraud, particularly regarding Open’s grading of the functionality matrix and the use of a different software portal. The court also upheld the finding that the City did not waive its right to rescind the contract, as there was conflicting evidence about when the City discovered the fraud. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Open’s Rule 50(b) motion, which argued that Open Investments could not be liable for rescission. View "City of Fort Collins v. Open International" on Justia Law

James E. Carroll, Jr. signed a contract with Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc. and SPM Management Company, Inc. for termite protection services for his home. The contract specified the use of the Exterra Termite Interception and Baiting System, with a liability limit of $250,000 for new termite damage. However, the respondents abandoned the bait station system without informing Carroll and began using a liquid application, which was allegedly done negligently. Carroll continued to renew the bait station contract, unaware of the change, and discovered significant termite damage to his home ten years later.Carroll sued the respondents for negligence and breach of contract. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the respondents on the negligence claim, citing the economic loss rule, which confined Carroll's remedy to the breach of contract action. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court clarified that the economic loss rule applies only in the product liability context when the only injury is to the product itself. Since the contract did not involve the sale of a product, the economic loss rule did not apply. The court found that the respondents' conduct in secretly switching to a liquid termiticide application was beyond the contract's scope, creating a duty of due care. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the respondents' negligence and its proximate cause of the termite damage. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with the $250,000 liability limitation applying only if the verdict is based solely on the breach of contract claim. View "Carroll v. Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc." on Justia Law

Avanzalia Panamá and its parent company, Avanzalia Solar, built a solar plant in Panama and sought to connect it to the El Coco substation, owned by Goldwind USA's affiliate, UEPI. Avanzalia alleged that Goldwind tortiously blocked their access to the substation, preventing them from selling electricity. Avanzalia filed a complaint with Panama's Autoridad de Servicios Públicos (ASEP), which required them to submit updated electrical studies and obtain an access agreement with UEPI. Despite obtaining the agreement, Avanzalia faced further delays and was unable to connect to the substation until May 2020.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to Goldwind. The court found that Avanzalia could not satisfy the Illinois state law requirement for tortious interference, which necessitates that the defendant's actions be directed at a third party. The court also applied collateral estoppel, concluding that ASEP's findings were binding and precluded Avanzalia's claims related to pre-access agreement delays.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to afford comity to ASEP's order and apply collateral estoppel, barring Avanzalia's claims related to pre-access agreement delays. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in not considering the impossibility theory of tortious interference under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A. The court vacated the summary judgment on this issue and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Goldwind wrongfully prevented Avanzalia from performing its contractual obligations. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "Avanzalia Solar, S.L. v. Goldwind USA, Inc." on Justia Law