Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

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.

Petitioner power companies sought a writ of prohibition in connection with a ruling of the circuit court denying petitioners' motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint filed against them by respondents, Shell Equipment and Shell Energy, as being barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioners argued that the trial court erred in ruling that the limitations period applicable to contracts for the sale of goods under the UCC does not apply to the coal sales agreement they entered into with Shell Equipment. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, finding that petitioners demonstrated clear legal error for which they were entitled to relief. The Court determined that the subject agreement constituted a sale of goods under W.V. Code 46-2-107(1), and, as a result, the four-year statute of limitations established by the UCC for the sales of goods was controlling. Because respondents did not initiate the lawsuit until after the limitations period had expired, the trial court committed error in failing to grant petitioners' motion to dismiss.

Citizens Bank filed a complaint against Howard Issler, seeking to recover funds allegedly owned to the bank in connection with a line of credit that the bank had extended to him. After judgment was entered against Howard and execution was returned unsatisfied, Citizens filed for a writ of attachment. Kymberly Issler, who had a joint account with Howard, then intervened in the civil action, objecting to the attachment and to the release of any funds to Citizens. A hearing officer granted the attachment. Citizens then filed a motion to charge garnishee to reach funds in the personal account. After a hearing, an order was entered granting Citizens' motion to charge garnishee and denying Kymberly's objection to the attachment of funds. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that, according to precedent, a bank has a right to use funds in a joint account to set off the debt of one account holder, regardless of whether that holder contributed any funds to the account. The Court then held that Citizens had a right to set off Howard's debt with the funds in the joint account to which he and Kymberly were signatories.

Plaintiffs Mark and Karla Gibbs brought claims in the federal district court against, among other defendants, Corinthian Title, Jeffrey Brown, Shelley Hickson, and Christine Tueckes, for civil conspiracy. The above defendants argued that the federal district court did not have in personam jurisdiction over them because Arkansas's long-arm statute does not allow application of conspiracy jurisdiction. The federal district court certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether the use of the conspiracy theory of in personam jurisdiction violates the state's long-arm statute. The Court answered in the negative. Arkansas's long-arm statute does not limit the exercise of personal jurisdiction to certain enumerated circumstances and is therefore limited only by federal constitutional law. Because jurisdiction based on the conspiracy theory does not violate due process, the conspiracy theory of in personam jurisdiction does not violate Arkansas's long-arm statute.

Gary Hoff filed a complaint alleging contract and negligence claims against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Lake County Abstract & Title Company. Countrywide failed to appear or answer within the 20 days permitted by Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(a), after which Hoff moved for entry of default against Countrywide. Countrywide later attempted to reverse the default proceedings with a motion to set aside the default pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 55(c) and then a Mont. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the entry of default for mistake or excusable neglect. The court denied the motions and entered a default judgment against Countrywide. Countrywide appealed and Hoff cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in its judgment against Countrywide because pursuant to Cribb v. Matlock Commc'n, Inc., good cause did not exist to set aside the entry of default, and (2) the district court did not err as Countrywide's 60(b) motion was procedurally defective. Lastly, the Court concluded the district court correctly denied Hoff's request for attorneys fees because the contract did not entitle either party to attorneys fees under the circumstances.

The imported back-mounted packs, used for outdoor activities and athletics, allow the user to drink without interrupting activity. U.S. Customs and Border Protection liquidated and classified the merchandise under subheading 4202.92.30, HTSUS, as "Trunks, . . . traveling bags, insulated food or beverage bags, . . . knapsacks and backpacks, . . . sports bags . . . and similar containers . . . of textile materials: . . . With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials: . . . travel, sports and similar bags" at a rate of duty of 17.8%. The company argued that the insulated beverage bag established essential character and that the items were properly classified as either "insulated food and beverage bags . . . whose interior incorporates only a flexible plastic container of a kind for storing and dispensing potable beverages through attached flexible tubing" (4202.92.04) or "insulated food and beverage bags . . . other" (4202.92.08), dutiable at 7%. The Court of International Trade affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The item is a composite product that includes features substantially in excess of those within the common meaning of "backpack." The essential character of the item is a disputed question of fact.