Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

1/2 Price Checks Cashed (Half-Price) brought a suit in a Dallas County justice court asserting breach of contract on the basis of the obligation owed by the drawer of a check under Tex. Bus. & Com. 3.414 and requested attorney's fees. At issue was whether a holder of a dishonored check could recover attorney's fees under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001(8) in an action against a check's drawer under section 3.414. The court held that Half-Price's section 3.414 claim was a suit on a contract to which section 38.001(a) applied and applying section 38.001(8) to the claim did not disrupt Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code's statutory scheme. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for a determination of attorney's fees.

In this case the Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether to adopt the "economic loss rule," which prevents the commercial purchaser of a product from suing in tort to recover for the economic losses arising from the malfunction of the product itself. The case involved a claim to insurers for a damaged piece of machinery. The insurers sued the manufacturers to recover the amount paid, claiming several causes of action including negligence, strict liability, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court held the economic loss rule barred the tort claims. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's adoption and application of the rule. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the economic loss rule applies to claims arising from a defective product sold in a commercial transaction, and that the relevant product is the entire item bargained for by the parties and placed in the stream of commerce by the manufacturer; and (2) the economic loss rule applies regardless of whether the product fails over a period of time or destroys itself in a calamitous event, and the rule's application is not limited to negligence and strict liability claims but also encompasses negligent misrepresentation claims.

ALC filed suit against Lamex in commonwealth court under Puerto Rico's Dealers' Contract Act (Law 75), which prohibits a principal from terminating a business relationship with a dealer without just cause. Before service of process, Lamex filed suit in federal court. The federal district court denied Lamex's requests to pierce the corporate veil and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, but granted Lamex's request for a declaratory judgment absolving it from liability under Law 75, ordered ALC to pay, and ordered the Superior Court of San Juan to release the money ALC consigned. The First Circuit affirmed the imposition of sanctions against ALC and the monetary judgment in favor of Lamex, but vacated the judgment with respect to Lamex's claims for a declaratory judgment and to pierce ALC's corporate veil. The district court erred in failing to provide indisputably clear notice of its intent to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2) and, in so doing, abrogated ALC's right to a jury trial.

Cach, L.L.C., alleging that it was an assignee of Bank of America, filed a complaint against Nathaniel Kulas seeking principal and interest on an unpaid credit card balance. The complaint stated that Kulas owed $6042 on the account. Cach then filed a motion for summary judgment, supporting its motion with affidavits and other documents alleging that the balance due on the account was $6042. In response, Kulas filed an objections to the summary judgment motion. The court found Kulas's responses were procedurally defective and granted Cach's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Cach's support for its assertions that it received an assignment of the account from the bank and that Kulas owed $6042 on the account was inadequate. Because Cach failed to properly establish each element of its claim without dispute as to material fact, the Court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case.

May Construction Company appealed from a circuit court order declaring a lien on real property, owned by Town Creek Construction & Development, subordinate to a mortgage filed by Chambers Bank and unenforceable against a lien bond issued by Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. For reversal, May argued that the circuit court erred in (1) interpreting the materialmen's lien statute, (2) ruling that construction commenced after the execution of Chambers's mortgage, and (3) finding that May could not recover against the lien bond. Town Creek cross-appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in ruling that May was entitled to a lien in the amount of $353,000. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the direct appeal, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that construction had not commenced prior to the recording of Chambers's lien because the ruling was based on the intent of the parties contrary to that plain language of the materialmen's lien statute. The Court then affirmed the cross-appeal, finding that the circuit court did not err in calculating the amount Town Creek owed May.

Plaintiff financed an ice cream hardening system. The lender held title and leased the equipment to plaintiff, but refused to set an end-of-lease purchase price. The final agreement did not refer to an estimate in a side letter or conversations concerning the lease price. Two years after the equipment was installed, plaintiff suggested an early buy-out. When the parties were unable to agree to a price, plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Utah Unfair Practices Act, promissory estoppel and fraud. The district court rejected other claims, but held that the lender had fraudulently professed, in a side letter, to have estimated 12 percent as the price when, in fact, it had no estimate. The court ordered the lender to convey the equipment and refund to plaintiff part of the payments made under the agreement. The First Circuit affirmed the award of title, but remanded for recalculation of the refund. The transfer of title was an expected outcome of the contract and the evidence supported a finding of fraud.

Defendant is a valet parking business and executed a letter of intent to buy a competing company for $16 millions. An outline of a financing agreement under negotiation with a private equity group contained exclusivity and confidentiality provisions. While that agreement was in effect, the defendant's founder negotiated financing from a company that owned 24.9 % of defendant company. The private equity company sued. The district court entered judgment in favor of defendant. The First Circuit affirmed. The district court properly declined to instruct the jury on the lost opportunity theory of causation and damages; at most, the equity group was deprived of a contractually guaranteed right to prevent defendant from negotiating financing with others. The court properly instructed the jury that the exclusivity provision reference to discussing financing with "any person or entity" was ambiguous.

An anti-dumping petition claimed that Chinese firms were exporting frontseating service valves at less than fair value. The Department of Commerce calculated normal value of the valves by using India as a surrogate market economy and identifying brass bars as a primary raw material; it valued the labor factor of production using regression analysis that included wage rates and gross national income data from sixty-one market economy countries. Commerce issued a final determination that calculated the surrogate value for brass bar without excluding the imports from Japan, France, and the UAE. The Court of International Trade upheld the determination. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for revaluation of labor, not using the regression approach, and reconsideration of sales at issue for calculating the relevant total dumping margin. Commerce’s reading of the evidence was reasonable in including data on imports from Japan, France, and the UAE, to calculate the surrogate value of brass bar.

Plaintiff Kathy Lamarque executed a mortgage with defendant Centreville Savings Bank. After defaulting on another loan for a second mortgage on the same property, defendant disclosed the balance of plaintiff's mortgage to the purchaser of plaintiff's property at a foreclosure sale. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for negligence and a violation of plaintiff's privacy rights. At trial, defendant moved for a judgment on partial findings, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that her right to privacy was violated by defendant and that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and defendant's privacy policy created a legal duty to protect private information from disclosure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the facts of the case, plaintiff's privacy rights were not violated and defendant did not breach its duty to plaintiff.

In November 2001, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an anti-dumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand, found that the company was selling the subject merchandise at less than normal value and assigned a dumping margin of 3.86%. In 2006 the order was partially revoked, as to the company, but remained in effect with respect to other exporters and producers. Commerce received a complaint that dumping had resumed and initiated changed circumstances review (CCR), despite the company's assertion that it lacked authority to so. The Court of International Trade (CIT) dismissed the company's suit for an injunction in 2009. Commerce reinstated the order with respect to the company; CIT affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Commerce reasonably interpreted and acted on its revocation and CCR authority under 19 U.S.C. 1675(b, d) as permitting conditional revocation and reconsideration.