Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Crewzers was awarded blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) with the Forest Service to provide buses that transport fire crews to wildfires and other disaster areas in regional and national wilderness zones and to provide flame retardant tents to disaster areas. Both BPAs established dispatch priority lists within geographic zones. When an emergency arose, the Service would to submit an order for the highest-ranked (lowest-priced) resource available on the priority. BPAs are frameworks for future contracts and state that “If a Contractor cannot be reached or is not able to meet the time and date needed, the dispatcher may proceed with contacting the next resource on the dispatch priority list.” The Service has discretion to deviate from priority lists as needed and did not make any guarantee that it would actually place orders under the BPAs. The BPAs required Crewzers to accept orders only if “willing and able.” The Service terminated the Crewzers BPA for buses after Crewzers allegedly responded with unauthorized vehicles and attempted to bill at a higher-than-authorized rate and later terminated its BPA for tents after Crewzers allegedly provided tents that did not meet specifications or failed to deliver on time. Crewzers sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to damages or to reinstatement of the BPAs. The Claims Court dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the BPAs were not binding contracts for purposes of invoking Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. 1491(a)) jurisdiction. View "Crewzers Fire Crew Transp., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Contractors Cargo, engaged in heavy-haul operations, commissioned Empire Bucket to fabricate a steel deck to be used with Cargo’s specialized rail freight car for transporting oversized loads. A third party designed the deck, specifying that the deck be fabricated from T-1 high-strength steel and that welding be performed to American Welding Society specifications. The deck was designed to transport up to 800,000 pounds. Empire fabricated the deck, which passed inspection by an outside agency and all nondestructive tests, and delivered it. Cargo connected the deck to its railcar and loaded it to 820,000 pounds. The next morning, an employee observed that the deck had dropped about three inches. Cargo attempted to raise it with a hydraulic jacking system, but the deck fractured. Cargo hired a metallurgical engineer, who determined that a portion of the weld was composed of material with properties different from the properties of the material in the rest of the weld where the crack originated. Cargo refused to pay the full purchase price. Empire sued and Cargo filed counterclaims. The district court granted Empire’s motion in limine to exclude testimony concerning one test performed on the deck after it failed. The jury returned a verdict for Empire. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that, given testimony admitted at trial, the excluded evidence would have added little to the implied warranty claims. View "Empire Bucket, Inc. v. Contractors Cargo Co." on Justia Law

Newman Park, LLC was formed for the sole purpose of developing a piece of property. In 2004, it took out a loan to purchase the property at issue in this suit. In 2008, without knowledge of the other owners in Newman Park, one member went to Columbia Community Bank and requested a loan for his 95%-owned company, Trinity. Trinity had nothing to do with Newman Park, but the Bank's loan to Trinity was secured by a second deed of trust on the Newman Park property. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Bank, who was tricked into refinancing the property that the borrower lacked authority to pledge as security, could benefit from equitable subrogation when that Bank had no preexisting interest in the property. The property-owner/debtor argued that the Bank's lack of the preexisting interest barred it from equitable subrogation because of the "volunteer rule" which would characterize it as an intermeddler. The Court rejected the volunteer rule as a bar to equitable subrogation. The Court affirmed the appellate court which held that the defrauded Bank was entitled to be equitably subrogated as first priority lienholder.View "Columbia Cmty. Bank v. Newman Park, LLC" on Justia Law

Immunosciences developed and sold medical tests and testing materials. In 2007, NeuroSciences wanted to expand its offerings. Immunosciences and NeuroScience decided to collaborate, but the relationship fell apart within two years. Immunosciences sued. In the first trial, a jury rejected a claim that NeuroScience did not pay what it had contracted to pay for medical testing materials, but the district judge ordered a new trial, concluding that the verdict was undermined by flawed special verdict questions. The jury in the second trial found for Immunosciences but awarded much less money than it was seeking. NeuroScience appealed, claiming that the court’s grant of a new trial was an abuse of discretion. Immunosciences argued that the court abused its discretion by allowing NeuroScience to argue in the new trial that the parties had orally modified their written contract and that NeuroScience breached a separate confidentiality agreement by continuing to use Immunosciences’ testing methods after the parties ended their business relationship. The jury in the first trial had awarded nearly $1.2 million on that claim, but the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for NeuroScience, explaining that Immunosciences had relied on an impermissible damages theory. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Vojdani v. Pharmasan Labs, Inc." on Justia Law

Apex, a manufacturer of electronics, and Sears entered into an agreement in 2003. In 2004, Sears implemented a program to create a return reserve on Apex’s account. The return reserve was an internal accounting mechanism used to place a negative dollar deduction on Apex’s account; Sears would hold back payment to Apex until the amount showing owed by Sears exceeded the amount of the reserve. In 2009 Apex filed suit, alleging that Sears breached the contract by refusing to pay $8,185,302 owed for goods delivered. The district court granted Sears summary judgment, finding that the action was barred by the four-year statute of limitations in Section 2–725 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Apex was on notice that Sears was not going to pay the deductions after each invoice and even marked these “wrongful” deductions in its own Invoice Report. For more than four years, Apex sat on its right to sue. View "Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co." on Justia Law

In 2005, James Wiese attended an auction held by Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC (APA) and purchased a "Yerf Dog Go-Cart," for his two minor sons. The go-cart was on consignment to APA from FF Acquisition; however, Wiese was not aware that FF Acquisition had manufactured the go-cart. Soon after purchasing the go-cart, Wiese discovered that the engine would not operate for more than a few minutes at a time. After several failed attempts to repair the go-cart, Wiese stored the go-cart in his garage for almost two years. In 2007, Wiese repaired the go-cart. Matthew Wiese was riding the go-cart and had an accident in which he hit his head on the ground causing a brain injury that resulted in his death in 2010. The elder Wiese brought contract claims against APA stemming from his purchase of the go-cart and for his son's death. APA appealed the circuit court's denial of its motion for summary judgment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that based on the common-law principles of agency, an auctioneer selling consigned goods on behalf of an undisclosed principal may be held liable as a merchant-seller for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under 7-2-314, Ala. Code 1975. As a result,the Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment denying APA's summary-judgment motion as to Wiese's breach-of-the-implied-warranty-of-merchantability claim. View "Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC v. Wiese" on Justia Law

Sasafrasnet, an authorized distributor of BP products, provided Joseph with notice of its intent to terminate his franchise based on three occasions when Sasafrasnet attempted to debit Joseph’s bank account to pay for fuel deliveries but payment was denied for insufficient funds. The district court denied Joseph a preliminary injunction, finding that Joseph failed to meet his burden for a preliminary injunction under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act 15 U.S.C. 2805(b)(2)(A)(ii). After a remand, the district court found that two of Joseph’s NSFs should count as “failures” under the PMPA justifying termination, at least for purposes of showing that he was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Joseph’s bank account was not adequately funded for the debit on two occasions because Joseph had decided to change banks, circumstances entirely within Joseph’s control. Given Joseph’s history of making late payments in substantial amounts because of insufficient funds (each was more than $22,000), the delinquent payments were not “technical” or “unimportant.” View "Joseph v. Sasafrasnet, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court centered on whether Lincoln Farm, L. L. C. breached a contract to sell potatoes to Farming Technology Corporation, and whether certain provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code involving the unavailability of a carrier and a commercially impracticable method of delivery were applicable to the parties. Farming Technology argued at trial that Lincoln Farm was required to build a private rail spur in order to fulfill Lincoln Farm's contractual obligation to load potatoes on railcars or trucks furnished by Farming Technology Corporation to take delivery of the potatoes. After review of the contract in question, the Supreme Court held that the contract unambiguously stated that Farming Technology Corporation would furnish railcars or trucks to take delivery of the potatoes, and that the contract did not state that Farming Technology had the right to insist on delivery solely by rail, or to insist that Lincoln Farm build a private rail spur. View "Lincoln Farm, LLC v. Oppliger" on Justia Law

Under a 2008 master contract, governed by Minnesota law, Lyon, a Minnesota finance firm, had a right of first refusal to provide lease financing for Illinois Paper’s customers. Lyon had the option to purchase office equipment supplied by Illinois Paper and lease the equipment to Illinois Paper’s customers who were interested in that type of financing. Illinois Paper expressly warranted that “all lease transactions presented ... for review are valid and fully enforceable agreements.” Lyon purchased a copy machine from Illinois Paper and leased it to the Village of Bensenville for a term of six years. The Illinois Municipal Code provides that municipal equipment leases may not exceed five years. When the Village stopped paying, Lyon sued Illinois Paper for breach of the contractual warranty. The district court concluded that the warranty was a representation of law, not fact, and was not actionable in a suit for breach of contract or warranty. The Seventh Circuit certified the question to the Minnesota Supreme Court, noting that Minnesota adheres to the maxim that a person may not rely on another’s representation of law, so where reliance is an element of a tort claim (such as fraud), representations of law are not actionable. View "Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. IL Paper & Copier Co." on Justia Law

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