About This Blog
Summaries and analysis of recent Delaware court decisions concerning business-related litigation.
Subscribe to Blog
JDSupra RSS
Join us on LinkedIn
Follow us on TwitterTopics
Top Posts
Top News
- February 19, 2021
- October 30, 2020
- April 1, 2024
Archives
Morris James Blogs
Showing 227 posts in Breach of Contract.
High Court Holds that Conflicting Contract Provisions Governing Agreement’s “Term” Create Ambiguity and Require Denial of Summary Judgment
Sunline Commercial Carriers, Inc. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., No. 185,2018 (Del. Mar. 7, 2019).
The parties disputed the termination date of two related agreements through which CITGO agreed to ship oil using the plaintiff trucking company, with CITGO arguing for an earlier termination date. On appeal from a decision granting summary judgment in CITGO’s favor, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter. Applying de novo review, the high court found that the two related contracts governing the transaction had conflicting terms and therefore were ambiguous with respect to the termination date. Although a provision in one agreement clearly set a one-year term – which the lower court found dispositive – the agreements read as a whole were ambiguous. In particular, the same contract with a one-year term (i) contemplated renewals, (ii) required 60 days’ notice for a termination and (iii) also provided for a review of pricing terms 60 days prior to the one-year period. That contract also provided (confusingly) that it would remain in effect until the termination of the second, related contract, which had a later default termination date. The Supreme Court also observed that avoiding an abrupt termination made sense in the commercial circumstances given the magnitude of the endeavor. In light of the resulting ambiguity, the Supreme Court reasoned it was appropriate to consider extrinsic evidence, which included internal CITGO emails indicating that it understood the contract to continue beyond the one-year term. The Court accordingly reversed and remanded the case for a trial on the issue of the agreements’ disputed term. More ›
ShareDelaware Superior Court Explains When Implied Covenants Triggered
The GWO Litigation Trust v. Sprint Solutions Inc., C.A. N17C-06-356 PRW CCLD (October 25, 2018)
While every contract has an implied covenant requiring the parties to act fairly and in good faith, it is not always easy to know how that applies in a given case. This decision is a good example of how the court will approach that issue. It finds that the contract impliedly limited the right of a party to compete with an entity it had formed with another party to exploit a business opportunity.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Interprets Contract Rights Under Commercially Rational Test
QC Holdings Inc. v. Allconnect Inc., C.A. 2017-0715-JTL (August 27, 2018)
This decision on a undisputed factual record interpreted a contractual right to put stock by rejecting one side’s argument as “commercially irrational.” It also held that the valid exercise of the put made the holder a creditor of the company entitled to enforce the put against the surviving party of a merger.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Interprets Preferred Stock Rights
How to interpret the provisions of preferred stock is often a difficult task. Any preference must be spelled out and any doubts resolved against preferring one class of stock over common stock. This decision holds that the preferred stock must show evidence it was intended to a preference at least when the authorization for that stock is ambiguous. The decision also affirms that stockholder rights to inspect records cannot be taken away by a certificate of incorporation.
ShareCourt of Chancery Enforces Redemption Rights and Addresses the Potential Effect of a Merger on Previously-Exercised Put Rights
QC Holdings Inc. v. Allconnect Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0715-JTL (Del. Ch. Aug. 28, 2018)
This decision is necessary reading for drafters of redemption rights. It involves the interpretation of a redemption rights agreement granting a stockholder the right to force the company to buy back its shares and some interplay between those put rights and the DGCL in the event of a merger. More ›
ShareCourt Of Chancery Upholds Contract Claim Based On The Standard Of Conduct In An Agreement
Wenske v. Blue Bell Creameries Inc., C.A. 2017-0699-JRS (July 6, 2018)
When the parties to a LLP agree on the standard of conduct the general partner should follow, its failure to live up to that standard is a breach of the parties’ agreement. Here the parties agreed the general partner would use industry practices in managing the business and when it failed to monitor the business to ensure those practices were followed, it was liable to the limited partners for the damages that resulted. The use of a somewhat vague standard of how the business should be conducted is therefore risky.
ShareCourt of Chancery Explains Contract, Fraud, and Fiduciary Duty Standards in Contingent Deal Price Dispute
Edinburgh Holdings Inc. v. Education Affiliates Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0500-JRS (Del. Ch. June 6, 2018)
It is common for parties to an acquisition to structure some portion of the purchase price as contingent on the acquired company’s post-close performance. With some frequency, a party dissatisfied with the resulting payment sues for breach of contract and may point the finger at those in charge during the relevant period for measurement. Out of this particular example comes reminders on well-settled standards for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, and breach of fiduciary duty. For instance, the implied covenant may be deployed as a defense to a breach of contract claim based on one party preventing the other’s performance, but it may not be used as an affirmative claim to override a contract’s express terms. Further, Delaware law does not permit bootstrapping fraudulent inducement claims onto contract claims by alleging that a party never intended to perform its obligations. Additionally, predictions about future performance generally cannot be the basis for fraud. Finally, Delaware courts will dismiss a breach of fiduciary duty claim that is entirely duplicative of a breach of contract claim.
ShareDelaware Superior Court Requires Contract Claim Be Plead For Prejudgment Interest To Start To Accrue
Viking Pump Inc. v. Century Indemnity Company, C.A. N10C-06-141 PRW CCLD (May 23, 2018)
This decision has an important warning. A complaint for a declaratory judgment does not alone entitle a plaintiff to a monetary judgment when its interpretation of a contract is upheld and the contract has been breached. Thus when the defendant then pays what is due and thereby negates the plaintiff’s ability to file a breach of contract case, the court will not award prejudgment interest even if the payment is years overdue. In short, add a breach of contract claim to any declaratory judgment complaint.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Explains Need To Prove Real Damages
Leaf Invenergy Company v. Invenergy Wind LLC, C.A. 11830-VCL (April 19, 2018)
This is an important decision because it points out that the breach of a contract does not always mean damages will be awarded. For example, an investor's right to consent to certain transactions or to receive a payment absent that consent does not mean that the failure to get his consent must entitle him to that payment. Rather if the contract does not provide for a measure of damages for its breach, the plaintiff must prove the breach harmed him. Here the transaction in question actually benefitted the plaintiff so that he would have consented to it had he been asked. While the no damages result may seem counterintuitive at first, the result makes sense.
ShareSuperior Court Provides Guidance On When A Tort Claim May Be Based On A Breach of Contract
Decisivedge LLC v. VNU Group LLC, C.A. N17C-05-584 WCC CCLD (March 19, 2018)
Too frequently a plaintiff seeks to buttress its case by adding a fraud or tort claim to what is really just a breach of contract. But as this decision points out, just alleging the defendant did not intend to pay what was due when the contract was signed is not enough to support a fraud count. The decision is also very helpful in repeating the Delaware law on when a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing may be filed.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Enforces Oral Agreement To Add Directors
Sarissa Capital Domestic Fund LP v. Innoviva Inc., C.A. 2017-0309-JRS (December 8, 2017)
This is a great explanation of when a director is authorized to enter into an oral agreement that is enforceable, here to add two directors to a corporate board. To make the agreement depend on entering into a written contract, there must be a “positive agreement” that the oral agreement is not otherwise enforceable.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Interprets Credit Agreement And Declines To Consider Alleged Oral Modification
Pine River Master Fund Ltd. V. Amur Finance Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0145-JRS (Oct. 12, 2017)
This decision interpreting a credit agreement’s terms is another reminder that an alleged oral modification to a written contract will not vary the contract’s terms when it has an integration clause and otherwise speaks to the subject of the modification.
ShareSuperior Court Explains Bootstrapping Doctrine
In Re Bracket Holding Corp. Litigation, C.A. N15C-02-233 WCC CCLD (July 31, 2017)
This decision is an excellent explanation of the “bootstrapping doctrine” that seems to often befuddle litigants. Briefly, a plaintiff cannot “bootstrap” a breach of contract claim into a fraud claim except in certain limited circumstances that this decision explains. For example, misrepresentations made to induce a contract may form the basis for a fraud calm.
ShareSuperior Court Explains The Personal Participation Doctrine
When is a corporate employee responsible for tortious conduct in that capacity? This decision answers that question in a very helpful way. For example, mere nonfeasance is not enough to impose liability on a corporate actor.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Declines To Enforce Agreement To Negotiate
Windsor I LLC v. CWCapital Asset Management LLC, C.A. No. 12977-CB (Del. Ch. July 31, 2017)
In this decision, the Court of Chancery declines to enforce an agreement to negotiate, applying Maryland law. The agreement set the rules of the road for any negotiations taking place between the parties, nothing more.
Share
