Posts in Breach of Contract

Superior Court Finds Breach Based on Actual and Apparent Authority, Invalidates Liquidated Damages Clause

Tropical Nursing, Inc. v. Accord Health Serv., Inc., 2006 WL 3604783 (Del.Super. Ct. Dec. 7, 2006).

In this breach of contract case, the Superior Court found that Defendant became contractually bound to Plaintiff based on actual and apparent authority it granted to both its permanent and temporary employees, and subsequently breached those contracts. Plaintiff was a provider of temporary nursing staff, and supplied temporary nurses to Defendant’s healthcare facility. Plaintiff’s contract claim was based on the terms provided for on the back of the temporary nurses’ timecards, which stated that Defendant would not interfere with the temporary nurse’s contractual relationship with Plaintiff, and if it did so Defendant would immediately pay a “work release payment”. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant breached these contracts with respect to 14 former employees of Plaintiff’s that Defendant had hired. Defendant argued that the nursing supervisors who signed the timecards did not have the authority to contractually bind Defendant to their terms. The Court found that Defendant had in fact given the supervisors actual and apparent authority to bind Defendant to the terms of the timecards, and Defendant was therefore in breach when it did not honor those terms. More ›

Share

Superior Court Invalidates Liquidated Damages Clause

Tropical Nursing, Inc. v. Ingleside Homes, Inc., 2006 WL 3579075 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 11, 2006).

In this opinion granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Superior Court evaluated the liquidated damages provision contained in Defendant’s contract with Plaintiff. Plaintiff had a non-exclusive agreement with Defendant to provide temporary nursing employment services to Defendant on an “as needed” basis. Timecards that the temporary nurses were required to have signed by Defendant contained a clause that restricted Defendant’s ability to hire the nurses, and provided for a “work release payment” in the event that Defendant breached that was equivalent to 500 times the hourly billing rate for the employee. Defendant sought a ruling from the court that the provision was an unenforceable penalty clause. The Superior Court found that the provision did not meet the standards for an enforceable liquidated damages clause, and therefore granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  More ›

Share

Superior Court Rejects Breach of Contract and Apparent Authority Claims, Grants Summary Judgment

Pisano v. Delaware Solid Waste Auth., C.A. No. 05-C-03-132-FSS (Del. Super. Nov. 30, 2006).

 

In this opinion granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Superior Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant had breached an alleged contract with Plaintiff to sell used waste-processing equipment, and found that Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant granted apparent authority to a third party to sell the equipment unconditionally lacked merit. Plaintiff alleged that he had entered into an unconditional contract with a third party serving as Defendant’s agent to acquire the equipment for $150,000, and that Defendant breached that contract when it later sold some of the equipment to another party. Defendant argued that it did not have a contractual relationship with Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff’s argument that the third party had authority to act on Defendant’s behalf was clearly unfounded. The Superior Court concluded that even viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, there was no basis for a jury to determine that Defendant had breached any contract with Plaintiff or had given the third party authority to act on Defendant’s behalf.

  More ›

Share

Federal Court Denies Motion For Reconsideration

Pell v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Inc., Civil Action No. 02-21 KAJ, 2006 WL 3391375 (D. Del. Nov. 22, 2006).

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Alteration in Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The Court had earlier found for plaintiffs under an equitable estoppel theory of relief involving misrepresentation but had denied the plaintiffs’ request for restitution for unduly low pension payments made to him. Plaintiffs now sought to have the Court reconsider its earlier holding that the defendants did not owe them compensation for unduly low pension payments because - allegedly - the Court had viewed the governing ERISA provision – Section 502(a)(3) - more restrictively that the Supreme Court did in Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002).

The Court denied the motion because there were no grounds presented for reconsideration. Specifically, the Court noted that the motion failed because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) that new evidence was available; or (3) that there was clear error of law or fact present on the record or to avoid causing manifest injustice. Here, plaintiffs sought to implicate the “clear error of law or fact” provision but did not discharge the high burden required to prevail on such a motion. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion.

Share

Court of Chancery Upholds Conspiracy Theory

Allied Capital Corporation v. GC-Sun Holdings, LP, C.A. No. 1954-N (Del. Ch. November 22, 2006).

This is the first decision that applies the law of civil conspiracy in the context of a parent and its subsidiaries. While there is authority that entities under common control cannot be held to have conspired together, that is not now the law of Delaware. This holding is particularly important in the way it may be applied to deal with coordinated conduct by related entities. The implications include that civil conspiracy may take the place of other legal theories, such as veil piercing, that previously were used to hold parent entities responsible for the wrongful conduct of their subsidiaries. More ›

Share

Superior Court Rejects Affirmative Defense of Res Judicata at Damages Stage

Gibbs v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., C.A. No. 04C-06-258-JRJ (Del. Super. Nov. 20, 2006).

In this opinion denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Superior Court rejected Defendant’s argument that the affirmative defense of res judicata barred Plaintiffs’ claims for damages. Plaintiffs, residential mortgage customers of Defendant, sued for breach of contract, consumer fraud, defamation, and violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. After Defendant failed to answer the complaint, the Court entered default judgment against it, and Defendant’s subsequent motion for an order vacating that judgment was denied. Defendant then moved for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ damages claims, arguing that res judicata barred the claims because Plaintiffs were class members in a similar suit in Massachusetts, and could not relitigate the same damages claims in the Delaware action. The Superior Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that it “[could not] assert res judicata as an affirmative defense under the particular circumstances….”  More ›

Share

Federal Court Affirms Arbitration Award That Included Share Valuation By Agreement

Millennium Validation Services, Inc. v. Thompson, C.A. No. 02-1430 (GMS), 2006 WL 3159821 (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2006).

Plaintiff, a Delaware corporation, and defendant filed motions to vacate/modify and confirm the arbitration award respectively. The Court granted the defendant’s motion to confirm the award. Defendant Thompson and two others founded Millennium Validation Services, Inc. (“Millennium”) with equal shareholding. Due to some differences, the two other members sought to compel defendant Thompson to withdraw from Millennium, by triggering some clauses under their Shareholder Agreement (“Agreement”). Subsequently, plaintiff sought to buy-out the defendant’s shareholding, with its valuation computed under the Agreement. In the interim, the plaintiff discovered through its agents that defendant was allegedly violating the terms of his non compete provisions of the Agreement because he was employed by a competitor. Plaintiff therefore suspended its buy-out of his shares.

Plaintiff then filed suit for breach of contract and interference with prospective contractual relations and the defendant cross-claimed for breach of fiduciary duty. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to binding arbitration. The independent arbitrator denied the plaintiff’s claims for lost profits, breach of contract and tortious interference and ordered it to pay defendant a far greater amount representing the buy-out value of his shares and accumulated interest, in addition to a loan that the defendant had advanced the plaintiff company. The arbitrator declined to amend or modify the award and the above cross-motions ensued.

The Court held that the limited grounds on which the arbitration award could have been vacated were absent in the present matter. Here, the plaintiff alleged that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by revaluing the shares of the defendant, a matter solely governed by the Agreement. This argument was dismissed because the parties had agreed to arbitration of the entire dispute – a term that included the valuation of the shares too. Similarly, the Court found that plaintiff’s non-compete violation and other claims failed to assert any grounds for vacating the arbitration award. Finally, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s argument that it was impermissible for the arbitrator to order a subsequent hearing to determine attorney fees and costs because there was no authoritative support for that contention.

Share

Superior Court Denies Summary Judgment in Breach of Contract Action

Fuller v. Gemini Ventures, LLC, C.A. No. 05C-06-019-RFS (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2006). Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim, notwithstanding another agreement (the "Release") subsequently executed between the parties that purported to release each of them from any claims related to the contract and cancel the terms of the contract. More › Share

Court of Chancery Holds Dividends May Not Be Forced

Superior Vision Services, Inc. v. Reliastar Life Insurance Company, C.A. No. 1668-N (Del. Ch. August 25, 2006). This decision answers the question of when a minority shareholder may block a dividend payment pursuant to the authority to do so in the company's certificate of incorporation. The Superior Vision charter provided that a dividend could not be paid absent the consent of 2/3 of the shareholders. As a 44% owner, the defendant refused to consent to the dividend. The company sued alleging that the defendant had violated a fiduciary duty to consent to the dividend and its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Court first held that absent actual control over the board of directors, a minority shareholder would not be deemed to be in control of the board just because it can block a board decision to pay a dividend. As a result, the Court concluded that the defendant did not owe a fiduciary duty to the company or its shareholders. In addition, the Court held that when, as here, the certificate of incorporation confers a power to veto a transaction and does not condition the exercise of that right, then there is no duty to act reasonably in that regard. Hence, the duty of good faith and fair dealing was not implicated and the Court dismissed the complaint. More › Share

Superior Court Dismisses Suit by Corporation Representing Former Shareholder for Lack of Standing

Appriva Shareholder Litigation Co. v. ev3, Inc., C.A. No. 05C-11-208 JOH, 2006 WL 2555348 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 24, 2006). Plaintiff entity controlled by certain former stockholders of acquired corporation sued acquirer alleging breach of merger agreement and fraud. Upon motion by defendant acquirer, the court dismissed the action on ground that plaintiff lacked standing. The court noted that the merger agreement appointed two individuals as shareholder representatives who were required to act in concert, one of whom the complaint reflected was not affiliated with plaintiff in any way. The court also noted that the merger agreement did not permit assignment of the shareholder representatives' rights without defendants' consent, which was never given. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that it be permitted to bring the action as a third-party beneficiary as inconsistent with the merger agreement's express terms. Share

Superior Court Resolves Contract Dispute Arising Out of Separated Ophthalmology Practice

Moore v. O'Conner, C.A. No. 01C-02-103 MJB, 2006 WL 2442027 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 23, 2006). Doctor sued former colleague for money allegedly owed pursuant to agreements the parties entered into upon the separation of their ophthalmology practice. Defendant counterclaimed for various alleged breaches of those same agreements, including (1) plaintiff's alleged misfiling or changing the labels on defendant's patients charts to reflect plaintiff as the treating physician; (2) plaintiff's alleged promise not to operate under the parties' prior trade name; (3) plaintiff's failure to return to defendant any of the amounts he paid to join the practice; (4) plaintiff's failure to list defendant as a Medicare provider; and (5) plaintiff's failure to include an agreed-upon automated telephone message on her office telephone. After trial and post-trial briefing, the court held that defendant was bound by the parties' agreement even though he was not aware of several of the terms at issue, including a provision requiring defendant to pay plaintiff a $30,000 "good will payment." The court also rejected most of defendant's counterclaim, finding no evidence of much of the alleged misconduct. The court did find, however, that plaintiff's failure to include an agreed-upon automated telephone message on her office telephone was a breach of the parties' agreement and that defendant's loss of patients was directly attributable to that breach. The court awarded defendant $128,102 in actual damages on this basis. Share

Court of Chancery Interprets Charter For Preferred Stock

Blue Chip Capital Fund II Limited Partnership v. Tuberger, C.A. No. 1611-N (Del. Ch. August 22, 2006). The Court of Chancery frequently is called upon to interpret a corporate certificate of incorporation. In this decision, the Court held that a certificate provision permitting a corporation to withhold a reserve for contingent liabilities in connection with calculating the liquidation preference for preferred shareholders did not automatically authorize the board to hold back the highest possible amount, even if doing so was unreasonable based on objective factors. The Court also held that the authority granted by 8 Del C. §281 to hold back a reserve for continent liabilities did not authorize the board to do so under the charter. Instead, the terms of the certificate need be interpreted on its own terms. More › Share

Superior Court Holds Alleged Oral Employment Agreement Unenforceable Under Statute of Frauds

Aurigemma v. New Castle Care LLC, C.A. No. 05C-04-113 MJB, 2006 WL 2441978 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 22, 2006). Plaintiff sued defendant medical facility for breach of an alleged oral agreement under which plaintiff was to serve as defendant's medical director from October 1, 2003, until October 1, 2004. Plaintiff claimed that this oral agreement was made on September 4, 2003. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that, even if it had reached an oral agreement with plaintiff, such agreement would be unenforceable under the statute of frauds because it could not be performed within a year. More › Share

Court of Chancery Expands Duty To Act in Good Faith

Horizon Personal Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., C.A. No. 1518-N, 2006 WL 2337592 (Del. Ch. Aug. 4, 2006). There is no duty that is more often cited and so little understood as that requiring a contracting party to act in good faith and deal fairly with the other contracting parties. In this case the Court of Chancery exhaustively examined the contract between the parties, determined what was required to act in good faith, and fairly awarded an injunction to preclude a breach of that duty. In doing so, the Court's analysis provides a road map for tracking the duty to act in good faith in the performance of a contract. More › Share

Superior Court Permits "New" Defense

Daystar Construction Management, Inc. v. Mitchell, CA No. 04C-05-175-JRS, 2006 WL 2053649 (Del. Super. Ct. July 12, 2006). This decision upholds for the first time the defense to a contract claim that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in the performance of the contract. It has long been recognized that all contracts include the obligation to act in good faith and to deal fairly. Exactly what that means is more difficult to state. In what it characterized as a case of first impression, this decision holds that the so-called covenant of fair dealing may be raised as a defense in a breach of contract case. Because this is an affirmative defense, the lack of fair dealing must be proved by the defendant. More › Share