Recently in Contract Law Category

In a breach of contract action arising out of a commission agreement entered into by the parties, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the affirmative defense of waiver of breach by acceptance of benefits did not apply; 2) the agreement was unambiguous in its treatment of different accounts as separate, and thus the district court did not need to submit the issue of severability to the jury; 3) the district court properly awarded plaintiff prejudgment interest because a method existed for calculating plaintiff's damages at the time of the loss; and 4) fee awards based in part on a contingency agreement are permissible under Arkansas law.

Read All-Ways Logistics, Inc. v. USA Truck, Inc., No. 08-1054

Appellate Information

Filed October 1, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bowman

In a real estate contract case involving a restrictive covenant preventing the sale of any non-BP petroleum products on the property, district court's grant of defendant-BP's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in considering the real estate contract and the Petroleum Restriction together as the Petroleum restriction is part of the real estate contract to be read as a whole; 2) district court did not err in enforcing the covenant as it continued to benefit BP and the changed circumstances in BP's plans did not defeat the purpose of the restriction; and 3) the premise that successors are not bound because the restrictions do not run with the land is rejected.      

Eastling v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., No. 08-3661

Appellate Information

Submitted: June 9, 2009

Filed: August 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Gruender, Circuit Judge

In an action for breach of an insurance contract and bad faith, district court judgment against defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to preserve for review its contention that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its bad-faith claim; 2) objection to the instruction on bad faith was waived as defendant failed to raise the objection during the instruction conference before the case was submitted, and the jury instructions as a whole fairly and adequately submitted the issues in the case to the jury; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial or a new trial based on juror misconduct, as the misconduct was innocuous and the juror was removed from the panel; 4) the jury verdict on the bad faith claim was supported by sufficient evidence, and the damages award was not excessive; and 5) the court did not err in submitting the punitive damages issue to the jury, and the jury's award was neither excessive nor unconstitutional. 

Read Moore v. Am. Family Mut Ins. Co., No. 08-3238

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
Submitted: June 10, 2009
Filed: August 14, 2009

Judges
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

District court order denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings involving claims of patent and trade dress infringement is reversed where: 1) the Federal Circuit does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal as the court's order was neither final nor injunctive, and the present court has jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. sec. 16(a)(1); and 2) the court erred in denying the motion as the dispute fell within the broad language of one of the arbitration provisions of the parties' agreement.    

Read Industrial Wire Products, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 08-3189

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Submitted: April 15, 2009
Filed: August 6, 2009

Judges
Before RILEY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge

In an action for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, district court's dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is reversed where: 1) the court lacked the power of dismissal under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1404(a) as there is an alternative federal forum in Nebraska and thus this is not a situation in which the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens has continuing application in federal court; and 2) even if transfer under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1404(a) were unavailable, the court still erred in its application of traditional forum non conveniens principles. 

Read Bacon v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. 08-2935

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Submitted: March 11, 2009
Filed: August 6, 2009

Judges
Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge

In an action for breach of contract and tort involving a lease to county land, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not breach a fiduciary duty to disclose during lease negotiations with the county that he had previously discovered, removed and attempted to sell fossil remains from the lease lands as the parties were dealing at arm's length, the county knew remains had been found in similar situations and defendant could reasonably expect the county to make its own investigations and protect its own interests; 2) the court did not err in dismissing county's claims for constructive and actual fraud; 3) the court did not err in dismissing the claim for rescission of the lease agreement based on unilateral mistake of fact as the county made no attempt to determine whether there had been any discoveries on the land; 4) the county's failure to comply with the public hearing requirement did not provide a basis for rescinding the lease; 5) the county is estopped from rescinding the lease based on its failure to comply with the South Dakota statute on leases; 6) the tort claims of trespass and conversion were properly rejected as defendant entered the land with the then-current lessee's permission and an action for conversion will not lie after a lease is signed; and 7) in the absence of an underlying tort, the county cannot state a claim for civil conspiracy.    

Read Harding County, SD v. Frithiof, No. 08-1540

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
Submitted: February 12, 2009
Filed: August 6, 2009

Judges
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MELLOY and BENTON, Circuit Judges
Opinion by LOKEN, Chief Judge

In an action for action for breach of contract and bad-faith denial of an insurance claim, district court judgment is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court erred in holding that plaintiff's insurance claim was barred under the insurance policies' notice-of-loss provision, as plaintiff and defendant received notice of loss on the same day and thus plaintiff complied with the provision; and 2) the court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's bad faith denial claim based on its analysis of the claim under Iowa law as the court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff.    

Read The Weitz Company, LLC v. Lloyd's of London, No. 08-2835

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Submitted: March 12, 2009
Filed: August 4, 2009

Judges
Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

In an action for breach of fiduciary duties, copyright infringement and other claims, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court properly denied of plaintiff's motion for a new trial on its breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of trade secrets claims as the jury could have concluded that defendants' conduct did not proximately cause plaintiff to lose the customers' business; 2) the court did not erroneously deny plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the conspiracy claim as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury findings that accounting defendants and banking defendants did not conspire with the former employees; 3) jury instructions on the conspiracy claim were not erroneous; 4) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on its aiding and abetting claims as the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude the defendants did not know the employees' conduct was improper; 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim; and 6) the court did not err dismissing defendant's counterclaim that he was improperly denied a bonus.   

Read PFS Distribution Co. v. Raduechel, No. 08-1701

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Submitted: April 15, 2009
Filed: July 28, 2009

Judges
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Riley, Circuit Judge.

District court judgment is reversed where the court erred in finding plaintiffs' indemnification claim was barred by the Missouri statute of limitations for actions on contracts, as the cause of action had not yet accrued under Missouri law when they filed their third-party complaint against defendant.   

Read Discovery Group LLC v. Chapel Development, LLC, No. 08-2334

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Submitted: January 16, 2009
Filed: July 27, 2009

Judges
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

In an action for breach of contract and various torts, district court judgment is reversed where the court erred in: 1) granting defendant summary judgment on a breach of contract claim as the parties' contract was ambiguous on the disputed provisions, and thus both parties should have the opportunity to introduce extrinsic evidence favorable to their interpretation of the provisions; 2) granting defendant summary judgment on a fraudulent misrepresentation claim as there was a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether the disclosure of certain facts was material; and 3) granting defendant summary judgment on the claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and rescission.   

Read Lafarge North America, Inc. v. Discovery Group LLC, No. 08-2210

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Submitted: January 16, 2009
Filed: July 27, 2009

Judges
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BYE, Circuit Judge.