About This Blog

Summaries and analysis of recent Delaware court decisions concerning business-related litigation.

Morris James Blogs

Links

Showing 229 posts in Breach of Contract.

Superior Court Explains Bootstrapping Doctrine

Posted In Breach of Contract

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.

Superior Court Explains The Personal Participation Doctrine

Posted In Breach of Contract

The Washington House Condominium Association Of Unit Owners v. Daystar Sills Inc., C.A. N15C-01-108 WCC CCLD (August 8, 2017)

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.

Court Of Chancery Declines To Enforce Agreement To Negotiate

Posted In Breach of Contract

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.

Court Of Chancery Addresses Material Adverse Change Clause In Commercial Contract

Posted In Breach of Contract

The Mrs. Fields Brand Inc. v. Interbake Foods LLC, C.A. 12201-CB (June 26, 2017)

A material adverse change or effect clause permits a party to avoid its contractual obligations under certain circumstances. Delaware courts have addressed so-called “MAC” clauses in the merger agreement context on a number of occasions. Under that precedent, the party claiming a MAC has a high burden of proof and the alleged adverse change to a company’s business must be unexpected, serious, and extend over a significant period of time. A short-term hiccup is not a MAC. This decision is notable because it largely extends this law to the commercial contract context. 

Delaware Superior Court Explains Liability Of Signatory To Contract

Posted In Breach of Contract

TMC Consulting v. Wright, C.A. N15C-11-132 EMD CCLD (January 26, 2017)

This is an excellent review of when a signatory to a contract might be personally liable notwithstanding that he claims to have only signed in a representative capacity. Hint: contractual references to the signatory separate and apart from the entity for which he is signing may create an ambiguity that prevents dismissal. It also has a good discussion on the limits of immunity for court-appointed receivers.

Delaware Supreme Court Explains Setoff And Recoupment

Posted In Breach of Contract, Statute of Limitations

Finger Lakes Capital Partners LLC v. Honeoye Lake Acquisition LLC, No. 42, 2016 (November 14, 2016)

This decision explains the difference between a defendant’s right of setoff and recoupment. The key difference is that the right of setoff arises out of an independent transaction, while recoupment must be based on the same facts that support the main claim. Another difference concerns the statute of limitations.  Setoff is subject to a three-year statute of limitations, while time-barred claims can be considered for recoupment when they arise out of the same factually-related transaction as the plaintiff’s claim.   

Court Of Chancery Holds Release Is Binding On A Non-Signatory

Posted In Breach of Contract

Geier v. Mozido LLC, C.A. 10931-VCS (September 29, 2016)

It may surprise many of us to know that a party who does not sign a general release may still be bound by its terms. Yet, that is what this decision holds under this case’s facts, which involved New York law and a release signed by the non-signatory’s affiliates. When the release binds those for whom the releasing party is authorized to act, carve out for those other parties is needed to avoid this result.

Court of Chancery Explains When Contract Bars Tort Claims and Arbitration

Posted In Arbitration, Breach of Contract

Flores v. Strauss Water Ltd., C.A. 11141-VCS (September 22, 2016)

This is a great decision on when the provisions of a contract bar tort claims of fraud and tortious interference. Briefly, when the contract speaks to an issue (e.g., expressly permitting certain acts, or imposing no duty to act), a party may not assert a tort claim that would deny the other party the benefit of its bargain. Further, when the contract between two parties selects a judicial forum for dispute resolution, arbitration is not part of the deal even if provided in a collateral contract involving one of those parties, at least not where there are no grounds for binding the non-signatory to the arbitration clause.



Court Of Chancery Explains Contract Interpretation Rules

Posted In Breach of Contract

iBio Inc. v. Fraunhoffer USA Inc., C.A. 10256-VCMR (July 29, 2016)

This is an excellent primer on the rules that guide the proper interpretation of a contract. While the rules it applies are taught to first year law students, they are too often forgotten by those of us long out of school.

Superior Court Dismisses Warranty Of Accuracy Claim

Posted In Breach of Contract

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc., C.A. N14C-10-160-MMJ (CCLD)

This decision holds that Delaware does not recognize a claim for the implied warranty of accuracy for a report of an inspection company. Of course, that does not mean there is no breach of contract claim for inspection services. The problem in such matters is that the contract often contains a limitation of damages clause that a clever plaintiff may try to avoid, but not this time.

Delaware Superior Court Clarifies When The Duty Of Acting In Good Faith Applies To Enforcement Of A Guarantee

Posted In Breach of Contract

Comvest Capital II, L.P. v Selkoe, C.A. N15C-08-110 JRJ CCLD (April 26, 2016)

This is a novel decision because it deals with when a guarantor can defend against enforcement of his guarantee by claiming the company whose obligations he guaranteed was wrongly put out of business by the plaintiff who is trying to enforce the guarantee. The Court held that there was a duty to act in good faith and fairly to permit that company to first fulfill its obligation to the guaranteed party, before it could enforce the guarantee against the guarantor. Whether this defense will win, of course, remains to be seen. However, the decision is a caution that it is important to not prejudice the ability of a party who has given a guarantee to have his guarantor pay off the debt..

Court Of Chancery Limits Fiduciary Claims Based On A Contract

Posted In Breach of Contract

CIM Urban Lending GP, LLC v. Cantor Commercial Real Estate Sponsor, L.P., C.A. 11060-VCN (February 26, 2016)

A recurring problem in Delaware jurisprudence is whether breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims may proceed simultaneously. This decision explains when they are duplicative of one another so that the secondary claim [here the breach of fiduciary duty one] should be dismissed.

CCLD Explains Indemnification For Assumed Contractual Liabilities

Posted In Breach of Contract

Alcoa World Alumina LLC v. Glencore Ltd., C.A. 15C-08-032 EMD CCLD (February 8, 2016)

This is an important decision because it explains the specificity with which provisions indemnifying a party for liabilities under a separate contract must be stated.  In this case, Glencore, which had sold an aluminum plant to an Alcoa subsidiary pursuant to an agreement in 1995 (the “1995 Agreement”), claimed that Alcoa had agreed in the 1995 Agreement to indemnify Glencore for any liabilities arising out of an earlier sale agreement pursuant to which Glencore had purchased the plant from Lockheed in 1989 (the “1989 Agreement”).  In a separate litigation, Lockheed was claiming that Glencore had to indemnify Lockheed for certain environmental liabilities pursuant to the 1989 Agreement. More ›

Superior Court Explains Reliance Disclaimer Clauses

Posted In Breach of Contract

Pivotal Payments Direct Corp. v. Planet Payment Inc., No. 15C-02059-EMD CCLD (December 29, 2015)

A party to a contract may try to limit any future claims of fraudulent inducement by providing an anti-reliance clause in its contracts. As this decision explains, such clauses need to be carefully drafted and particularly need to address any oral statements made before the contract is signed. This decision is also useful for its coverage of the distinction between fraud and breach of contract claims based on whether the claim alleges fraudulent intent.

Court Of Chancery Limits Scope Of Review Under ADR Clause

Posted In Breach of Contract

PECO Logistics LLC v. Walnut Investment Partners L.P., C.A. 9978-CB (December 30, 2015)

Not infrequently, the parties to a complicated contract include a contractual provision on how to resolve any later disputes. For example, it is common to agree to use an accounting firm to resolve accounting disputes, such as what is due under a payout formula. But what is the scope of review of such a determination? More ›