Posts tagged Breach of Contract

Court of Chancery Awards Reliance Damages for Promissory Estoppel

Ramone v. Lang, C.A. No. 1592-N, 2006 WL 905347 (Del. Ch. Apr. 3, 2006). This case involved a dispute between two businessmen who hoped to work together on a project to open a swim and fitness center, but who failed to achieve this despite months of efforts and negotiations. Plaintiff and defendant intended to formalize their relationship in a written LLC agreement. Ultimately, defendant closed on the property for himself, frustrated by his inability to reach a final agreement with plaintiff. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and promissory estoppel. The Court of Chancery found that there was no contract between the parties and that the parties were not partners, therefore defendant did not owe any fiduciary duties. The court did, however, find that plaintiff had a claim for promissory estoppel and awarded reliance damages. More ›

Share

Superior Court Denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for a More Definite Statement in Breach of Contract Case

Spanish Tiles, Ltd. v. Hensey, C.A. No. 05C-07-025 RFS, 2005 WL 3981740 (Del. Super. Ct. March 30, 2006). Plaintiff Spantis Tiles, Ltd. D/b/a Terra Tile and Marble ("Terra Tiles") and Plaintiff Steel Buildings, Inc. d/b/a Northern Steel buildings, Inc. ("NSB") brought an action against Kurt and Ken Hensey (the "Henseys") for breach of contract, tortious interference with contracts and prospective contracts, violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, common law fraud, unlawful practice and defamation. The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and moved for a more definite statement. The court denied both motions. More › Share

Superior Court Enters Judgment in Favor of Defendant on Grounds that Defendant did not Breach Contract Where Plaintiff Waived Express and Implied Warranty that Material was Fit for Intended Use.

Freudenberg Spunweb Company v. Fibervisions L.P., C.A. No. 04C-03-073 (FSS), 2006 WL 1064173 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2006) Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract claiming raw materials provided by Defendant to Plaintiff's customers were defective. Defendant agreed to provide polypropylene staple fiber for Plaintiff's state-of-the-art factory, but the raw materials routinely clogged the machinery. Plaintiff sought more than $10 million in damages. More › Share

Superior Court Denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Parties and Improperly Joined Claims

Sonitrol Corp. v. Signature Flight Support Corp., C.A. No. 05C-07-302, 2006 WL 1134775 (Del. Super. March 24, 2006) Signature entered into multiple contracts with Sonitrol pursuant to which Sonitrol would install electronic security equipment and provide security services at various locations. Signature accepted the services and equipment, but failed to pay approximately $491,523.59 for certain equipment and services. More › Share

Court of Chancery Finds Breach of Oral Contract Regarding Executive Compensation and Breach of Fiduciary Duty for Failure of Such Compensation to Satisfy Entire Fairness Test

Carlson v. Hallinan, C.A. Nos. 19808, 19466, 2006 WL 771722 (Del. Ch. Mar. 21, 2006). This case involved a direct and derivative action arising out of a dispute between two men engaged in the business of making short term, unsecured loans. Plaintiffs asserted direct claims for breach of contract and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendant Hallinan breached an oral contract with plaintiffs by paying himself and another defendant executive compensation. Plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants breached fiduciary duties they owed nominal defendant CR Services Corp. by paying themselves an excessive amount of executive compensation. The Court of Chancery found, among other things, that Hallinan breached the oral contract with plaintiffs and defendants committed multiple breaches of their fiduciary duties to CR because they failed to meet the entire fairness standard regarding their compensation. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Finds Violation of GAAP Claim Subject to Arbitration Because Claim was Actually Breach of Warranty and Representation

OSI Systems, Inc. v. Instrumentarium Corp., C.A. No. 1374-N, 2006 WL 656993 (Del. Ch. Mar. 14, 2006). In this case, plaintiff buyer and defendant seller in the sale of a business argued over the type of contractual arbitration that should be used to solve a disagreement over the form of arbitration each preferred. The Court of Chancery granted seller's motion on the pleadings because buyer's claims were for breaches of representations and warranties, which fell under the indemnity provisions of the contract and the form of arbitration set forth in those provisions must be used by buyer. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Uses Contract Interpretation Principles to Determine Rights of Bondholder Against Borrower

Cypress Associates, LLC v. Sunnyside Congregation Associates Project, C.A. No. 1607-N, 2006 WL 668441 (Del. Ch. Mar. 8, 2006). This case involved a dispute between a bondholder and the borrower that succeeded to most of the issuer's duties and rights. The parties argued over the extent to which the borrower could amend certain contracts without approval from the bondholders. Plaintiff bondholder refused to provide its assent to an amendment the borrower desired because it believed that the amendment would lower the value of its bonds. The other bondholders supported the amendment. The Court of Chancery denied in part and granted in part the borrower's motion to dismiss. More › Share

District Court Denies Dismissal of Breach of Contract and Fraud Claims, But Dismisses Deceptive Trade Practices Claim

HSMY, Inc. v. Getty Petroleum Mktg., Inc., C.A. No. 05-818-JJF, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8268 (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2006). Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and violations of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the Delaware Retail Gasoline Sales Law ("DRGSL") and the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DDTPA") in the Delaware Superior Court. Defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and moved to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Holds "Anti-Reliance" Contract Provisions Cannot Exclude Liability For Fraudulent Misrepresentations

Abry Partners V, L.P., et al. v. F&W Acquisitions LLC, et al., C.A. No. 1756-N, (Del. Ch. Feb. 14, 2006) (published at 891 A.2d 1032 (Del. Ch. 2006). This is plaintiffs' suit for rescission of a corporate acquisition contract. The seller moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The court focused on the law and policy of the unambiguous bar to recessionary relief and limitations in damage recovery for misrepresentations through the contract's exclusive indemnity-limiting provision. The court reconciled the power of privately ordered contracts allocating risk between the parties and Delaware's public policy disfavoring a bar on recessionary remedies and damages for willful misrepresentations. Additionally, the court examined the elective remedies available to the plaintiff-buyer. More › Share

Court of Chancery Accepts Fiduciary Status Through Partnership Interest-Assignment And Appraises Interest's Value

Ramunno v. Capano, et al., C.A. No. 18798-NC, 2006 WL 375541 (Del. Ch. Feb. 10, 2006). This is a fiduciary claim based action to appraise the fair value of real property brought by the trustee of four trusts that held a 12.1% interest in that property held by the defendant entity and its two majority interest holders, after that entity's merger into a new Delaware limited partnership. More › Share

Court of Chancery Partially Grants Plaintiffs' Motion For A Preliminary Injunction Enforcing A Non-Competition Agreement

Deloitte & Touche USA LLP v. Lamela, C.A. No. 1542-N, 2005 WL 2810719 (Del. Ch. Oct. 21, 2005). Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant to prevent him from soliciting any current, former or prospective clients that he had contact with while employed by Plaintiffs. More › Share

District Court Dismisses Proposed Insurance Class Action But Grants Leave to Amend Complaint

Eames v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., C.A. No. 04-1324-KAJ, 412 F. Supp. 431 (D. Del. 2006). Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action alleging that defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("Nationwide") misrepresented to class members the limits of liability of the Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") coverage that was included in Nationwide's automobile policies. Nationwide moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. More › Share

Court of Chancery Holds For Defendant-Corporation On Untimely Stock-Options Claim

Richard W. Vague v. Bank One Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 18741, 2006 WL 290299 (Del. Ch. Feb. 01, 2006). In this post-trial opinion, the court examines an untimely claim on stock-options against employer-corporation after expiration of contractually agreed limitations period and the corporation's claim against another employee for violation of duties related to the claim of options. More › Share

Delaware Supreme Court Reverses the Superior Court's Certification of Class in Suit Against Securities Dealers

Wit Capital Group, Inc. v. Benning, No. 568, 2004, 2006 WL 249983 (Del. Jan. 31, 2006). The plaintiffs sued the defendants, Wit Capital Group Inc. and Wit Capital Corporation ("Wit"), securities broker/dealers, alleging that the defendants breached their account agreement by failing to allow the plaintiffs to purchase certain IPO shares. The plaintiffs argued, pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 23(b)(3), that common questions of law or fact predominated over questions affecting individual class members. Reversing the Superior Court's decision to certify a class, the Delaware Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show fact of common injury affecting all plaintiffs. More › Share

Superior Court Finds "Volunteer" Director of LLC Immune from Suit and Requires Plaintiff to File a More Definite Statement As to Whether Board's Actions Were Void

Gilliland v. St. Joseph's at Providence Creek, C.A. No. 04C-09-042, 2006 WL 258259 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 27, 2006). After the board of directors of an LLC terminated the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging, among other things, that the board's actions were void. The defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's suit. The court found that one of the directors was immune from suit pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8133, which grants immunity to an organization's volunteers. Another defendant, the LLC from which plaintiff had been terminated, argued that the claim against it should be dismissed because the board's actions were voidable rather than void. However, there was no indication that the Board had ever ratified the voidable acts. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file a more definite statement as to what it was claiming against that defendant. More › Share