ContractsProf Blog

An interesting case about reformation...and tricking ourselves about our pasts

Reformation is one of those doctrines that I love to have class discussions over, really interrogating when (and whether) courts should employ it. A recent decision out of Delaware, In re 11 West Partners, LLC, C.A. No. 2017-0568-SG, has a nice reformation discussion in clear, straightforward language that I think could be useful in class. I especially like the Court's remarks about "the conclusions of social scientists and psychologists that witnesses may come to believe in factual scenarios beneficial to them . . . ." It's a gentle and sympathetic decision regarding "honorable" men whose recollections of the truth all differ. 

h/t to Eric Chiappinelli at Texas Tech for forwarding us this case!

When ambiguity is ambiguous

I am always fascinated by cases where the courts can't agree whether a contract is ambiguous or not. The very fact of there being disagreement should probably point to the contract being ambiguous, right? A recent case out of Pennsylvania, SBA Towers II LLC v. Wireless Holdings, LLC, No. 325 WDA 2018, gives us another example. The lower court and the majority on appeal found that the clause in question was ambiguous. A partial concurrence/dissent, however, would have held that the contract was unambiguous. The dissent argued that the majority was finding ambiguity in the contract's silence, and that in this case ambiguity should have been rooted in something about the contract itself:

"In sum, although an ambiguity could, in another scenario, arise from the silence in a contract as to a particular term, Appellees in this case have failed to articulate a basis for finding ambiguity in Paragraph 18 of the lease, e.g., unclear wording or punctuation, the impossibility of enforcement of the contract term as written, or language in another paragraph that would make Paragraph 18 confusing or unworkable."

The majority opinion is here, the partial concurrence/dissent is here. 

If your contract says you'll provide notice of modifications, then you can't modify without notice

A class action in the Southern District of New York, Pisarri v. Town Sports International, No. 18 Civ. 1737 (LLS) (behind paywall), has breach of contract claims that survived a motion to dismiss based on the notice requirement to make modifications. The class action has been brought on behalf of a number of members of a chain of gyms. The contract between the gyms and their members stated that the gyms could modify the contract at any time but it also stated that the gyms would notify members of any modifications. The members alleged that they were not notified of the modifications to the contract. This was a plausible allegation of breach of contract and so survived the motion. 

However, the members' other breach of contract claim based on the gyms' revocation of their memberships did not survive. The contract allowed the gyms to revoke membership at any time if it was in the gyms' best interest. The court concluded that it was well within the gyms' best interest to revoke the memberships of people who were suing them. Since the members had other gym alternatives available to them, the court found the gyms' actions reasonable and dismissed this breach of contract claim. 

(Previous decisions on the preliminary injunction in this case can be found here, and the complaint is here. Some additional stories on the case are here and here.)

An employer isn't bound by a policy unless the employee is aware of and relies upon the policy (e.g., reads the handbook!)

A recent case out of Illinois, Brown-Wright v. East St. Louis School District 189, NO. 5-18-0311 (behind paywall), finds that in order for an employee policy to operate as a binding contract, the employee has to have read the policy.

In the case, the plaintiff was suing based on an alleged violation of the sick leave payout policy. The plaintiff, however, did not find out about the policy her case was relying upon interpreting until after her employment ended. Therefore, it was not the case that she learned of the policy and continued to work as acceptance of and consideration for that policy. Because the plaintiff did not read the policy before terminating employment, she could not rely upon it now. 

This is a lesson to all of us to read those policies our employers send around. 

An issue spotter of a case

A recent case out of New York, Neumann v. Sotheby's, Inc., 652170/2018, has so many issues it reads like an exam question. (You can read the complaint here, and a more general write-up here.)

First. the court had to tackle the question of when a contract was formed and which of the many interactions between the parties was the governing contract. That involved the court reading emails closely to determine if there was ever an offer and acceptance. The court concluded there was not, because the parties always spoke in terms of "fine tuning" the agreement, contemplated a subsequent written document would happen, and did not intend to be bound until then. There was also a consideration issue, because basically in the emails the parties were just agreeing to discuss entering into an agreement. 

Subsequent written contracts between the parties on the subject contained merger clauses that in and of themselves would have superseded the emails, even if the emails had constituted binding contracts. The emails also did not satisfy the statute of frauds, as they contemplated a three-year term but did not contain all the material terms nor a signature from the party to be bound. Finally, the plaintiff had not been damaged because the plaintiff did not actually have the rights he was claiming were violated. 

 

At the intersection of illegal contracts, immigration policy, and fast food restaurants

When I teach about illegal contracts, I often find myself talking about paid assassins, because for some reason it's the only example I can come up with on the fly (let's not psychoanalyze that too much). A recent case out of California, Lin v. Chiu, B285053, has a different illegality analysis. The case involved a contract concerning an investment of money into the opening of a fast food restaurant franchise. Chiu alleged that Lin used the contract to apply for permanent residency in the United States, even though the contract did not fulfill the requirements for such an application, and therefore the contract was illegal and unenforceable. 

The court disagreed. Even if Lin's attempt to use the contract as the basis for residency might be questionable, the central purpose of the contract itself was a straightforward investment, not anything illegal. Nothing about the alleged illegal use of the contract had anything to do with Lin's contractual rights to repayment of his investment, and there were no allegations that the contract was merely a sham to defraud the U.S. government. It was a bona fide contract in and of itself, with the objective of receiving a return on investment, and not the objective of winning Lin permanent residency. Maybe Lin had an illegal motive underlying his actions, but that did not change the fact that his actions were a legitimate business transaction. Enforcing the investment contract, the court found, would not encourage others to use such contracts as an illegal basis for permanent residency. 

Texas court finds economic development corporations don't receive governmental immunity from suit

A recent case out of Texas, Rosenberg Development Corp. v. Imperial Performing Arts, Inc., No. 17-0660, tackles the question of whether economic development corporations are protected by the sovereign immunity doctrine, concluded that they are not. Interesting for its analysis of how to treat economic development corporations in this breach of contract suit. 

The disputes around the "To Kill a Mockingbird" play could fill a whole contracts exam

I have already blogged about one contract dispute over the new stage adaptation of "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Now, with that dispute settled, the former adversaries (Harper Lee's estate and the producers of the current stage adaptation) have joined forces to shut down small productions across the country of the previous stage adaptation of the novel. As the New York Times reports, the problem seems to have arisen from the conduct of Dramatic Publishing Company, which has the right under a contract signed with Harper Lee in 1969 to license theater companies to produce the original stage adaptation of the novel. The problem is that, allegedly, those rights were limited in times when a "first-class dramatic play" of "To Kill a Mockingbird" was playing in New York or on tour. However, Dramatic has apparently continued to license the play's production without adhering to the restrictions that the current play's producers argue should have kicked into place. Many small theater companies have found themselves caught in the fallout of this contractual dispute, through no fault of their own. 

h/t to Eric Chiappinelli, Professor of Law at Texas Tech!