Dynport Vaccine Co. LLC v. Lonza Biologics, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: April 30, 2015

Opinion by: James K. Bredar

Holding: A basic ordering agreement that provides a framework for future contracts but fails to include mutuality of obligation is not by itself an enforceable contract.

Facts: Contractor and subcontractor entered into a basic ordering agreement, wherein defendant “agreed to provide certain services, pursuant to task orders.” Plaintiff issued various task orders, including three specific task orders mentioned in the complaint. Plaintiff brought suit alleging it incurred significant costs because of defendant’s refusal to perform and its breach of the basic ordering agreement.

Defendant argued the basic ordering agreement was not an enforceable contract and, therefore, the claim of breach of contract failed to state a claim for relief. Defendant conceded that the task orders were binding and legally enforceable contracts, but noted that plaintiff did not rely on breach of the task orders for its breach of contract claims.

Analysis: The “meager case law available” provides that a basic ordering agreement “is not an enforceable contract, despite its use of terms typically used in the language of contracts.” The court likened a basic ordering agreement, which only provides the framework for future contracts, to an agreement to agree because “contractual obligations will arise only after an order is placed.” Under such an agreement “no obligations are assumed by either party until orders are given by the [plaintiff] and accepted by the [defendant].”

The court reviewed the language of the basic ordering agreement in question, concluded it lacked mutuality of obligation and found it to be unenforceable. However, as both parties agreed the task orders were enforceable contracts, the court redefined plaintiff’s count as claiming breach of contract as to those task orders.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Falls Garden Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Falls Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (Md. Court of Appeals)

Filed: January 27, 2015

Opinion by: Lynne A. Battaglia

Holding:  A letter of intent may be an enforceable contract where definite terms are included, signaling intent of the parties to be bound, and the material terms of a contract are included.  Further, where the letter of intent is unambiguous and constitutes an enforceable contract, it is unnecessary to have a plenary hearing on the merits of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement

Facts: The appeal arose out of the execution of a letter of intent which was the result of the settlement of litigation over the contested ownership of parking spaces.

Analysis:  Distinguishing Cochran v Norkunas, which held that the parties did not intend to be bound by a letter of intent and it was therefore unenforceable, the Court noted that in the present case the parties expressed their intent to be bound to the letter of intent through the definiteness of terms included therein.

In discerning the enforceability of the letter of intent the Court relied upon the often cited and influential treatise Corbin on Contracts, which divides cases where letters of intent have been an issue into a spectrum with four categories: (i) where the parties specifically say that they intend not to be bound until the formal writing is executed; (ii) cases where the parties clearly point out one or more specific matters on which they must yet agree before negotiations are concluded; (iii) cases where the parties express definite agreement on all necessary terms, and say nothing as to other relevant matters not essential, but that are often included in similar contracts; and (iv) cases like those of the third class, with the addition that the parties expressly state that they intend their present expressions to be a binding agreement or contract, and are thus conclusive as to the parties intent.  The Court indicated that the essential distinction between the indefinite middle two categories centers on the question as to whether the terms included in the document are definite or indefinite, which then informs the central question as to whether the parties intended to be bound and, thus, their mutual assent.  Under this framework of analysis, the Court finds the letter of intent to be enforcable due to the mutual assent of the parties, and the lease is not enforceable.

Following this line of reasoning, the Court noted that due to the absence of ambiguous terms in the letter of intent the trial judge need not entertain extrinsic evidence, especially if the evidence were to be of a self-serving nature, as in the present case.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Ohio Learning Centers, LLC v. Sylvan Learning, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed July 24, 2012

Opinion by Judge Richard D. Bennett

Held:  (1) A forfeited corporation may defend against a lawsuit and file counterclaims arising out of the same subject matter as the underlying suit.  (2) Courts employ a totality of the circumstances approach in reviewing a jury trial waiver provision, including factors such as the parties' bargaining power, the conspicuousness of the waiver provision and whether the provision is comprehensible.
 

Facts:  Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an asset purchase agreement, a license agreement and two promissory notes pursuant to which Plaintiffs would purchase and operate a  franchise.   The license agreement also contained a non-compete clause.  Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs were unable to make payments on the promissory notes.  Defendants sent two notices of default and intent to terminate license agreement to the Plaintiffs. 

The Court ordered Plaintiffs to "not use any or all of the trademarks, service marks, or trade names associated" with the Defendants.  The Court also held that the agreements were valid and enforceable and that Plaintiff breached those agreements.  The Court withheld ruling on any damages in order to adjudicate the remaining claims, set forth below. 
 

Analysis:  Plaintiffs argued that because two of the Defendants had forfeited their charters for failing to file personal property tax returns with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation, the defendants were prohibited from maintaining or defending any lawsuit in the state.  The Court disagreed and stated that “it is well established in Maryland that a forfeited corporation may defend against a lawsuit and file counterclaims arising out of the same subject matter as the underlying suit.”  Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 57 Md. App. 190 (1984) and Price v. Upper Chesapeake Health Ventures, 192 Md. App. 695 (2010) ("an LLC whose rights have been forfeited...may only defend an action in court, not prosecute one"). 

Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial because the promissory notes and the asset purchase agreement contained a jury trial waiver.  The Court agreed that three of the four agreements at issue contained jury waiver clauses.  But, the Court highlighted that the main contract governing the claims in litigation did not.  The Court employed a totality of the circumstances approach.  It denied the motion after review of the superior bargaining power of the Defendants, the integrations clause in the license agreement and the inconspicuous location of the waiver clause in the promissory notes and the asset purchase agreement.   

Defendants' also moved to dismiss with respect to several fraud claims, including claims involving Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.  The Court stated "a plaintiff can successfully bring a tort action for fraud that is based on false pre-contract promises by the defendant even if (1) the written contract contains an integration clause and even if (2) the pre-contractual promises that constitute fraud are not mentioned in the written contract."  Next Generation Group, LLC v. Sylvan Learning Ctrs, LLC, No. CCB-110986 (2012).  Because the materiality of any alleged omissions are factual questions inappropriate for determination at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court denied the motion.

The Court briefly reviewed other claims, including tortious breach of good faith, unfair competition, defamation, tortious interference in contractual relations, deceptive trade practices and antitrust conspiracy.

The full opinion is available in pdf. 

Stalker Brothers, Inc., et al. v. Alcoa Concrete Masonry, Inc. (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: October 24, 2011
Opinion by Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr.

Held: The Maryland Home Improvement Law does not render a contract between a home improvement general contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor unenforceable. The statute was intended to protect the public under contractor-owner contracts and not contracts between contractors who engage in arms-length transactions with one another.

Facts: Alcoa Concrete Masonry, Inc. ("Plaintiff") was an unlicensed subcontractor providing work for Stalker Brothers, Inc. ("Defendant") on contract. The two companies did business together from 2004 to 2007. Payments were regular at first but the Defendant started to miss payments in 2005 and after an attempt to reconcile the amount due among themselves the Defendant began to miss payments again, eventually refusing to pay the Plaintiff altogether.

The Plaintiff contended that they had been intentionally misled by the Defendant and that the Defendant had signed Releases of Liens stating that all subcontractors had been paid for the work when in fact the Defendant knew they had not paid the Plaintiff thereby gaining access to funds not rightfully theirs. As a defense the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff had preformed this residential home improvement work while an unlicensed subcontractor in Maryland and as such contracts made by such an unlicensed subcontractor were illegal and unenforceable under the Maryland Home Improvement Law.

Analysis: In broad agreement with the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals [see HERE for a prior blog entry regarding the Court of Special Appeals opinion] the Court of Appeals applied the "revenue/regulation rule". Using this rule the Court distinguished between a contract between an owner and contractor as a contract covered under the Maryland Home Improvement Law, and a contract between a contractor and a subcontractor as not covered under this statute. The Court found that the purpose of the Maryland Home Improvement Law is to protect the public and not a method by which contractors could escape liability for past due amounts due to subcontractors that were unlicensed at the time they performed the contract.

The full opinion is available in PDF.