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.

Bank of Commerce v. Maryland Financial Bank (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: March 2, 2015

Opinion by: Ellen Lipton Hollander

Holdings:  The meaning of a contractual provision is not discerned by reading it in isolation, but by recognizing its relation to the other terms of the complete contractual relationship.

Extrinsic evidence indicating a party is entitled to proceeds of a foreclosure on a first out basis may only be considered if the underlying contract is ambiguous.

Facts:  Nearly two years after a loan was made, defendant purchased a 25% interest in the loan pursuant to a participation agreement.  The loan went into and remained in default despite various efforts to cure the default.  Plaintiff initiated a foreclosure proceeding.  The resulting foreclosure sale resulted in a loss on the loan. 

The parties disagreed as to how the foreclosure proceeds should be disbursed under the participation agreement.  Section 9(b) of the agreement provided that plaintiff “shall promptly remit to [defendant] its percentage interest first, as hereinabove specified, of all net proceeds received by [plaintiff] as a consequence of such foreclosure proceeding.”  The agreement did not define percentage interest.  Section 1 of the agreement provided that defendant’s “interest in the loan, expressed as a percentage, is 25.00%.”

Analysis:  Instead of receiving 25% of the foreclosure proceeds, defendant argued it was entitled to “its full 25% interest in the loan first, before the remaining foreclosure proceeds are distributed” because the terms pro rata and ratable were absent from Section 9(b).  The Court viewed defendant’s interpretation as being at odds with the allocation of losses section of the agreement, which required ratable allocation of any losses on the loan.  The Court also noted that defendant, in selecting an option for priority of payments, chose “pro rata” rather than “first out” or “100%.”  Citing Atlantic Contracting & Material Co. Inc. v. Ulico Cas. Co., the Court stated “the meaning of a provision is not discerned by reading it in isolation, but by recognizing its relation to the other terms of complete contractual relationship.” 

Defendant also argued that the use of the word “first” in section 9(b) shifted a greater risk to plaintiff in the event of a default and subsequent foreclosure sale.  Plaintiff argued the word first refers to defendant receiving its 25% ratable interest, not defendant being remitted its entire investment.  The Court agreed and stated that contractual terms must be read by recognizing their relation to the other contractual terms.

The Court also stated that defendant’s interpretation would effectively convert defendant’s participating investment into a loan, which is generally inconsistent with a participation agreement.  The Court then reviewed several cases and factors to determine whether a transaction involves a participation interest or a loan. 

The Court declined to introduce extrinsic evidence, in the form of a letter attached to an e-mail, indicating defendant was entitled to proceeds on a first out basis.  The Court held that extrinsic evidence may only be considered if a contract is ambiguous and such ambiguity does not exist “simply because, in litigation, the parties offer different meanings to the language.”

The opinion is available in PDF.

Knight v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: February 4, 2015

Opinion by: James K. Bredar

Holding: Under the Maryland Credit Agreement Act, Cts. & Jud. Proc., § 5-408, a borrower may not introduce extrinsic evidence to interpret ambiguities in a credit agreement where a claim for breach of contract is asserted as a means to directly defeat or attain modification of the credit agreement.

Facts: Plaintiffs obtained several loans from a bank secured by real property owned by plaintiffs. Within two years, the real property serving as collateral (the “property”) significantly declined in value and plaintiffs and the bank renegotiated the terms of the existing loans in a letter agreement. The letter agreement provided, among other things, that it was in the mutual interest of plaintiffs and the bank to have the property “engineered to obtain the highest and best use” and thus the bank agreed to pay for a market feasibility study and fifty-percent of reasonable costs for such engineering. Subsequently, the bank was placed into receivership and defendant purchased the bank’s assets, including the loans to plaintiffs. Neither the market feasibility study nor the re-engineering ever occurred and plaintiffs defaulted on the loans.

Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendant breached the letter agreement because, during negotiations leading up to the letter agreement, the bank agreed to obtain the market feasibility study, not just pay for it. Plaintiffs did not allege, however, that the bank’s obligation had been reduced to writing. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claim.

Analysis: Applying an objective standard of contract interpretation, the Court found the letter agreement ambiguous as to which party was responsible for obtaining the market feasibility study. Further, the letter agreement was subject to the Maryland Credit Agreement Act, under which extrinsic evidence is barred in a dispute about a credit agreement if the borrower asserts a claim as a means to directly defeat or attain modification of the agreement. The court noted that extrinsic evidence nevertheless may be considered by a court if the borrower asserts a claim “notwithstanding the implicitly conceded enforceability” of the agreement, such as any claims that would serve as a set-off against any judgment. The Court found that plaintiffs’ allegations of the verbal agreement between them and the bank would modify the terms of the letter agreement and thus the Maryland Credit Agreement Act barred the Court from considering such evidence.

Although the letter agreement implied that when it was drafted, all parties expected a market feasibility study to take place, the Court found no evidence that either plaintiffs, the bank or defendant made an undertaking to obtain such study. This silence defeated plaintiffs’ allegations that defendant breached a contractual obligation and therefore the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim against defendant.

In a footnote, the Court points out that if plaintiffs had alleged the bank promised to obtain the market feasibility study in writing, the court would face a “radically different” question, and such evidence would likely be considered in resolving the ambiguity in the letter agreement.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Elite Construction Team, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed:  March 2, 2015

Opinion by: James K. Bredar

Holding:  An unpaid subcontractor that has no privity with an owner may not prevail against such owner in a claim that the owner is unjustly enriched. 

Facts:  Defendant entered into contracts with a contractor to construct three stores.  Contractor entered into a subcontract with Plaintiff to perform certain site development services.  Plaintiff furnished labor, materials and extra work at the direction of Contractor.  Contractor failed to pay Plaintiff.  Plaintiff alleged Defendant withheld monies from Contractor in an amount equal to the amount Plaintiff claims it is owed.  Plaintiff asserted claims under a theory of breach of implied contract or quantum meruit. 

Analysis:  The Court relied on the Court of Appeals decision of Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NationsBank of Maryland, which recognized that claims in quantum meruit and implied contract are all aimed at achieving restitution.  Restitution is a restoration required to prevent unjust enrichment.  The Bennett court provided that an owner’s enrichment is not unjust when the owner gets no more than what was contracted for.  Instead, a subcontractor not in privity with the owner may obtain a judgment against the general contractor and seek through garnishment or subrogation the monies owed by the owner to the general contractor.  Because Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant, its claims failed.

The Court disagreed with Plaintiff’s argument that it was an intended beneficiary of the contracts between Defendant and the general contractor and, therefore, a constructive trust was created in Plaintiff’s favor.  The Court noted precedent that a constructive trust is a remedy for unjust enrichment, but found Bennett to “unequivocally establish” that Defendant is not unjustly enriched. The Court also noted that the contracts between the Defendant and the general contractor expressly disavow any interpretation that would “confer any rights upon any person who is not a party to the” contracts. 

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Lomax v. Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, P.A. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed January 15, 2013

Opinion by Judge Catherine C. Blake

Holding: Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, a party to a contract containing a mandatory arbitration provision cannot avoid arbitration of a claim against a nonsignatory to the subject contract when the basis for the claim is that contract.
 
Facts: Plaintiff Lomax financed the purchase of a car with a loan obtained through a retail installment contract (the “RISC”) with Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”).  After CAC repossessed and sold the car it retained Weinstock to obtain a deficiency judgment against Lomax.  Lomax filed suit against Weinstock alleging the firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. Weinstock filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the action and compel arbitration based on the RISC’s mandatory arbitration provision.
 
Analysis: It is settled that parties must submit claims to arbitration where they have a valid arbitration agreement and it covers the issues in dispute.  Lomax did not dispute the validity of the RISC or the arbitration agreement within it, but argued that Weinstock, as a nonsignatory to the RISC, could not invoke the arbitration clause.  The Court held, however, that when each of a signatory's claims against a nonsignatory makes reference to or presumes the existence of the written agreement, the signatory is equitably estopped from refusing to submit such claims to arbitration if the arbitration provision is sufficiently broad to encompass the claims.  Because Lomax relied on the RISC as the basis for her attempt to collect damages from Weinstock and the arbitration provision in the RISC was broadly worded so as to include claims against the seller’s attorneys, Lomax was estopped from disclaiming the mandatory arbitration provision contained in the RISC.
 
The Court granted the motion to dismiss.

The opinion is available in PDF. 

Bhari Information Technology System Private Limited v. Sriram (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed December 2, 2013
Opinion by Judge Paul W. Grimm

Holding:  A court should grant a motion to dismiss on arbitration agreement grounds only if the terms of the agreement are free from ambiguity. 

Facts:  Defendant was the sole stockholder of a consulting company, incorporated in Maryland, which he sold to Plaintiff, a Dubai corporation.  Defendant moved to dismiss on several grounds, one of which included to dismiss the proceedings pending arbitration, pursuant to an arbitration clause in the contract for sale of the consulting company. The arbitration clause provided, in its entirety: "Arbitration.  Any arbitration shall be in accordance with ICC rules."

Analysis:  "In determining whether parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question, the Court should consider (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties exists and (2) whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement."  The Court further noted that if the terms are free from ambiguity the Court should grant the motion to dismiss on arbitration agreement grounds.  The Court found the agreement to be ambiguous and not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss.  

The Court granted the motion to dismiss on other grounds.  Please note that it is not clear from the case whether the contract was governed by Maryland law.

The full opinion is available in PDF. 

TIG Insurance Company v. Monongahela Power Company (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: December 21, 2012

Opinion by Judge Shirley M. Watts

Held:  Pennsylvania law applies to the interpretation of insurance policies where the policies are delivered to and paid from a company’s office within that state.

Facts: Appellee, a Maryland corporation, is a holding company that purchased numerous insurance policies from various insurance companies (hereafter collectively referred to as “insurers”). Among these policies were four Excess Insurance policies issued by appellant, which provided indemnification of appellee for loss exceeding certain amounts. On each of these policies, appellee listed a New York address.

In 2001 and 2002, appellee demanded that the insurers indemnify it for costs related to the settlement of asbestos suits that triggered the policies and informed insurers to expect thousands of additional. Following these demands, one of the insurers filed a complaint against appellee and the other insurers requesting a declaratory judgment for the purpose of determining what obligations were owed under the policies. In 2010, appellee filed a motion for partial summary judgment requesting that the court find that Pennsylvania law apply to all policies made within a certain timeframe. It argued that the policies were “made” in Pennsylvania because the policies were accepted through payment of premiums by its insurance managers in that state.  Appellant joined in the arguments of another insurer, contending that New York law should apply due to appellee's headquarters there.  The trial court granted appellee’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Analysis: The court engaged in a thorough analysis of contract construction, explaining that insurance policies are contracts and under the doctrine of lex loci contractus, absent a contractual choice of law provision, a contract will be governed by the law of the state where the last act necessary to complete the contract occurs. For insurance policies, Maryland appellate courts have consistently held that this occurs in the state where “the policy is delivered and premiums are paid.” In this case, there was undisputed evidence that this occurred in Pennsylvania.  The record showed that: 1) appellee’s insurance department was located in Pennsylvania; 2) its insurance broker was also located in that state; 3) it was the general practice of appellee for insurance policies to be received by the insurance broker and forwarded to appellee’s Pennsylvania office; 4) it considered itself bound by a policy after the policy was received in its Pennsylvania office, at which point it would begin paying premiums; and 5) premium payments were made from its Pennsylvania office.

Appellant contended that New York law should apply because appellee was headquartered in New York, making it reasonable to conclude that the policies were delivered to that state. The court, however, noted that a company being headquartered in a state does not mean that all contracts into which the company enters are made in that state. Because appellant offered nothing to show that the policies were delivered to New York or that the premiums were paid from New York, the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of partial summary judgment and found that Pennsylvania law applies to the interpretation of the insurance policies.

The court went on to address a separate issue raised by appellant regarding whether, under Pennsylvania law, appellant is entitled to a set-off against the appellee’s loss which reflects the settling insurers’ proportionate shares of coverage for responsibility of the loss. 

The full opinion is available in  PDF.

Minnesota Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baylor & Johnson, PLLC (Maryland U.S.D.C)

Filed: April 3, 2012
Opinion by Judge James K. Bredar

Held: In a declaratory action, the Court held that the Plaintiff was not liable to the Defendants under a professional liability insurance policy for defense and indemnification in a legal malpractice case.

Facts: The Plaintiff insurance company brought this declaratory action to determine its liability to the Defendant law firm in a legal malpractice case. In the underlying case, the Defendant failed to submit any affidavits, testimony or other sworn evidence in support of its Client’s opposition to summary judgment. The Client received a judgment against him, which was affirmed by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on July 8, 2009. As soon as the Defendant read the Court of Special Appeals’ opinion, it contacted the Plaintiff to give notice that there may be a possible legal malpractice claim. The Client brought a legal malpractice claim against Defendant on August 11, 2009. The Plaintiff defended the Defendant until October 1, 2010, when it informed the Defendant that it would cease representation because the Defendant did not properly report the claim during the time when the firm “first became aware of the facts which could have reasonably supported the claim asserted against it by [Client].” The Defendant settled the case with the Client.

Analysis: The Court first construed the insurance policy language in light of the facts in this case. The insurance policy is a claims-made policy that covers all claims made during the policy period. The pertinent part of the policy states that “[a] CLAIM is deemed made when . . . (3) an act, error or omission by any INSURED occurs which has not resulted in a demand for DAMAGES but which an INSURED knows or reasonably should know, would support such a demand.” Under Maryland law, the Court uses an objective standard to determine if an insured has reasonable knowledge of the claim. Here, the Court found that that the malpractice claim happened when the Defendant submitted a faulty opposition to summary judgment motion and the Defendant should have known of the possible claim at this time because a reasonably lawyer barred in Maryland should know the standard for summary judgment motions. The Defendant had to inform the Plaintiff during the 2006 policy term, in order to be covered by the policy and it did not.

Second, the Court determined whether Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-110 (LexisNexis 2011) applies to this policy. This statute requires the insurance company to prove that it was actually prejudiced by the insured’s failure to give notice. Maryland Courts have interpreted § 19-110 to apply to insurance policies when the notice requirement is a covenant but not a condition precedent. See Sherwood Brands, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 13 A.3d 1268 (Md. 2011) (interpreting the notice requirement as a covenant); T.H.E. Ins. Co. v. P.T.P. Inc., 628 A.2d 223 (Md. 1993) (interpreting the notice requirement as a condition precedent). If the notice requirement is a condition precedent, then a contract does not exist if the notice was not given and the insurance company has no obligation to the insured. The courts focus on the specific language of the policy to determine whether § 19-110 applies. Here, the Court found that the notice was a condition precedent and § 19-110 did not apply.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Central Truck Center, Inc. v. Central GMC, Inc. (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: September 7, 2010.
Opinion by: Judge J. Frederick Sharer.

Held: This Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Seller of a truck dealership on the basis that no fraud had been committed by the Seller and that an integration clause found in an agreement barred the Buyer from asserting claims of fraud (including fraud in the inducement), concealment, and negligent misrepresentation.

Facts:

The Seller initially sued the Buyer for breach of a written contract by failing to pay approximately $50,000. The Buyer counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, concealment, and negligent misrepresentation based upon Seller’s inaccurate financial statements resulting in a large part from the cancellation of a contract between the Seller and a government agency. The Buyer asserted that the proceeds of the government contract had inflated the Seller’s sales figures in the financial reports and that the Seller’s gross receipts on the financial reports were inflated due to overbilling the government agency.

The Seller sought summary judgment based, in part, on the grounds that the sale agreement contained an integration clause stating that it constituted a complete integration of the terms of the contract and superseded "all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, inducements or conditions, express or implied, oral or written, with respect hereto, except as contained herein." The sale agreement also did not contain any representations or stipulations to Buyer as to a continuation of Seller’s past income or the accuracy of Seller's financial statements.

The Seller also argued that: (i) the Buyer had no expectation of income from the government contract because it had expired months before the sale agreement was executed; (ii) the Seller retained (and thus did not sell) the accounts receivable after the closing; and (iii) the Buyer was aware of a pending audit of the Seller's billing practices by the government agency because the Seller had disclosed the investigation in the Exhibits to the sale agreement.

The trial court found no clear and convincing evidence that the Seller made any false representations to the Buyer, with the intent that the Buyer would rely on them, with regard to the status of the financial statements, the status of the government contract, and the allegedly overbilled contract.

The trial court determined that the Seller's financial statements were prepared and utilized in the ordinary course of business, not in anticipation of the parties' negotiations for the purchase and sale of the truck dealership. The Buyer asked to view the statements well before closing, but it did not take further action to verify or question the numbers prior to entering into the Agreement, even in light of its undisputed knowledge that an audit of the allegedly overbilled contract was in the offing. Especially given the integration clause, the fact that the financial statements were not incorporated into the agreement, and that the parties were sophisticated in business matters and represented by counsel, there was no evidence that Buyer reasonably relied on the figures in the Seller’s financial statements.

The Buyer appealed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the grounds that the lower court erred by employing the incorrect standard in evaluating the claims and wrongly concluded there was no dispute of material facts and improperly relied on the sale agreement’s integration clause to foreclose any argument on fraud, concealment and any of the tort claims such as negligent misrepresentation.

The Seller argued against the appeal on the grounds that the lower court: (i) properly applied the integration clause to bar the court from considering any document outside of the four corners of the agreement; (ii) correctly ruled that the record did not support a finding that the Seller made any false representations, and (iii) the lower court found proper notice of the status of the government contract and thus any reliance by the Buyer on a different status was improper.

Analysis:

This Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Seller because the Buyer did not show that the Seller made any false representations that it justifiably relied upon or that it suffered compensable injury from such representations.

The Court evaluated the matter based on the elements for fraud under Maryland law, which are: (1) the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff, (2) that its falsity was either known to the defendant or that the representation was made with reckless indifference to the truth, (3) that the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, (4) that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and had the right to rely on it, and (5) that the plaintiff suffered compensable injury resulting from the misrepresentation.

The Court found that the government contract, books and records were found to be in existence long before the sale agreement was even contemplated, and that the exhibits to the sale agreement provided notice to the Buyer of the pending audit by the government agency, and that the Seller made no representation to the Buyer that it could expect the same level of income in the summer months following the closing of the transaction.

The Court also found that the Buyer’s reliance on any statements by the Seller was improper because the Seller’s financial statements were prepared by the Seller and used by the Seller in its ordinary course of business and were provided to Buyer well before closing and the Buyer made no further investigation of the financial statements even though it had notice of a pending audit. It also found that the parties were represented by sophisticated service providers and could not understand how the Buyer could conclude that financial statements reporting the past could guarantee future performance.

The Court also found that the integration clause combined with the sophistication of the parties made the reliance by the Buyer of documents not part of the sale agreement (the financial statements were not included in the agreement) unreasonable.

The Court, even after assuming for argument purposes that the Seller misrepresented the sales figures and the Buyer justifiably relied on the misrepresentation, held that the Buyer did not present any clear and convincing evidence of any compensable injury as a result of such acts. Buyer's evidence of damages consisted of the speculative and unsupported assertion that it paid more for Seller’s dealership than the dealership was worth. The mere fact that Buyer's sales in the first three months of operating the dealership were lower than anticipated, based on the allegedly inflated revenues in Seller's financial statements, does not by itself establish that the Buyer's losses were caused by any unfulfilled promise by the Seller. Even if the allegedly overbilled contract had improperly inflated the Seller’s revenues, the Buyer had no expectation of any revenue from that contract, which expired prior to the negotiations for purchasing the dealership. Furthermore, the Seller had retained all rights to collect its account receivables.

The Court affirmed that lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the Seller because there was no evidence of any misrepresentation or concealment by the Seller.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Cloverleaf Enterprises, Inc. v. Maryland Thoroughbred, Horsemen's Association, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: August 25, 2010

Opinion by Judge Richard D. Bennett.

This is a companion opinion to the opinion, the summary of which was posted on August 16, 2010.

Held: (1) Allegations that the defendants conspired to orchestrate an illegal boycott require more proof to survive summary judgment than e-mails informing defendants that other parties to a consent agreement were withdrawing their consent.

(2) Contract provisions that provide that the contract can be terminated if certain governmental approvals or consents are not "private rights of action" to enforce provisions of legislative enactments, but are, instead, contractual provisions.

Facts: Cloverleaf Enterprises, Inc. owns a racetrack in Maryland that accepts horse racing wagers on live simulcast signals provided by other racetracks. The signals come from both Maryland and out-of-state racetracks. As required under federal and Maryland law, Cloverleaf obtained the consent of other Maryland racetracks and certain other groups before receiving the simulcast signals. The consent was in the form of a Cross-Breed Agreement, pursuant to which Cloverleaf paid weekly fees in return for the right to accept wagers on the simulcast races. Cloverleaf and TrackNet Media Group, LLC entered into a Simulcast Agreement, pursuant to which TrackNet agreed to simulcast horseracing content from certain other racetracks.

Cloverleaf breached the Cross-Breed Agreement by failing to pay the required weekly fees. As a result, the other Maryland racetracks withdrew their consent to Cloverleaf receiving the simulcast signals of their own races and out-of-state races. Following the withdrawal of consent, TrackNet informed Cloverleaf it could no longer distribute the horseracing content under the Simulcast Agreement.

Cloverleaf filed a complaint against TrackNet and Churchill Downs Incorporated alleging breach of contract. (Additional claims brought by Cloverleaf are discussed in the posting of August 16, 2010.) Defendants moved for summary judgment.

Cloverleaf contended summary judgment should be denied for three reasons: 1. the Maryland Jockey Club did not have the right under law to withdraw consent; 2. the Simulcast Agreement required approval to be withdrawn from a government entity for termination; and 3. the defendants participated in an illegal group boycott.

Analysis: The court applied Kentucky law to find the Simulcast Agreement was not breached. The agreement was free of ambiguity and "automatically terminated . . . upon the failure to obtain or withdrawal of any approvals required by any applicable laws . . . ." Thus, the agreement terminated when consent was withdrawn.

The court disagreed with all of plaintiff's arguments against summary judgment. First, the legality of the withdrawal of consent is irrelevant because the Simulcast Agreement did not require the defendants to assess the validity of the withdrawal. Second, the use of different words in the Simulcast Agreement, such as "approvals," "consents," and "requirements," did not convey different authorizations as the agreement stated termination can occur upon the "withdrawal of any approvals." Third, as a "party cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact through mere speculation or compilation of inferences," e-mails sent to defendants informing them of the withdrawal of consent lacked sufficient proof of an illegal group boycott to withstand summary judgment.

The full opinion is available in pdf.

In Re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation, Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: March 30, 2010.

Opinion by Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Held: Disposing of the remaining claims in multi-district litigation against Microsoft, the Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to assert the claims because it had transferred them: a contractual clause that assigns claims "associated directly or indirectly" with operating systems encompasses claims based on alleged harm to related software applications.

Facts: Two claims remained in plaintiff's assertion that defendant violated the Sherman Act. The Court found two questions to answer upon cross-motions for summary judgment, (1) did plaintiff own the claims it was asserting, or had they been transferred to another party under an asset purchase agreement and (2) if plaintiff still owned the claims, are the claims viable under the Sherman Act.

The Court previously ruled that plaintiff did not assign the claims because those claims focused on harm suffered by the "software applications, not upon harm suffered by the operating systems."

Analysis: The Court looked to the asset purchase agreement to determine whether the claims were transferred. Applying Utah law, per the agreement, the Court overruled its prior ruling because the agreement did not mention harm. Instead, the agreement used the term "associat[ion]." As there was no ambiguity in the language of the agreement, the Court found all claims "associated directly or indirectly" with the operating system, including the claims involving the software applications, transferred. Thus, the second issue was rendered moot.

Alluding to the procedural length of the litigation, the possibility of both an appeal and an appellate court disagreeing with the Court's conclusion, the Court analyzed the second issue. The Court found the claims would have been viable under the Sherman Act had they not been assigned.

The opinion is available in pdf.

Micro Focus (US), Inc. v. Bell Canada (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: February 23, 2010
Opinion by Judge Roger W. Titus

Held: The forum selection clause in the license agreement between the parties did not allow courts in Maryland to exercise personal jurisdiction over Bell Canada, a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Toronto. Other than this provision, the plaintiffs did not assert any other basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Bell Canada.

Facts and Analysis: Prior to December 31, 2008, Bell Canada entered into a license agreement with Micro Focus for certain software. The license agreement had the following provision:

If Licensee acquires the Software in North America, the laws of the state of Maryland govern this License Agreement. If Licensee acquires the Software in France, Germany or Japan, this License Agreement is governed by the laws of the country in which Licensee acquired the Software. In the rest of the world the laws of England govern this License Agreement. The aforesaid applicable law shall apply without regard to conflicts of laws provisions thereof, and without regard to the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods. This License Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the country determining the applicable law as aforesaid.

(Emphasis by the Court.)

Applying Maryland law, the Court found that Micro Focus' interpretation was unreasonable:

Micro Focus’ interpretation requires two questionable inferences. The first inference is that the “country” governing licenses executed by North Americans must be the United States because Maryland is part of the United States. The second inference is that “courts of the country” means all federal courts in the United States. Both inferences are tenuous. Accordingly, the Court rejects Micro Focus’ contention that the forum selection clause unambiguously refers to the federal courts of the United States.

(Footnote omitted.)

Further, the Court found that the "clause at issue is . . . nonsensical in that it vests courts with exclusive jurisdiction over a 'License Agreement' rather than over parties or over actions arising out of the License Agreement."

Perhaps as an admonition to drafters of contracts, the Court warned that "the best of intentions, if not clear and unequivocally communicated, simply will not suffice when it comes to a waiver of objections to personal jurisdiction."

The full opinion is available in PDF. The opinion has been approved for publication.

Gebhardt & Smith, LLP v. Md. Port Adm'n (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: October 29, 2009
Opinion by Judge Kathryn Grill Graeff

Held: Language in a Lease Agreement stating that the operating expenses payable by the tenants "shall be determined by Lessor's certified public accountant," is not a condition precedent to tenant's obligation to pay these expenses. Further, when a contract provides that a determination rendered by a designated person is "final," that determination is binding on the parties and cannot be contested in court in the absence of fraud or bad faith.

Facts: Gebhardt & Smith, a law firm, leased office space in Baltimore, Maryland, from 1977 until 2006 in the World Trade Center, an office building operated by Maryland Port Administration. The parties executed the lease at issue in 1992 and the tenant agreed to pay per month base rent, plus its proportional share of real estate taxes and operating expenses. The tenant challenged the operating expenses invoiced by the Landlord and did not pay any bills for operating expenses from 2003 to 2006 based upon a provision in the lease that provided that these expenses shall be determined by the landlord's certified public accountant.

Relying on this passage, the tenant argued that it was a condition precedent to its obligation to pay for operating expenses for the landlord to have an independent certified public accountant determine the actual operating expenses at year's end. The tenant also argued it was not precluded from contesting the certified public accountant's calculations as to the accuracy of the operating expenses.

The Circuit Court rejected the tenant's position. It held that the lease does not require an "independent" certified public accountant to determine the operating expenses and that the landlord complied with the lease provisions by employing its internal certified public accountant to determine the operating expenses. Further, the lower court noted that pursuant to the terms of the lease, which stated that the certified public accountant's calculations were "final," the tenant was precluded from challenging whether the operating expenses were calculated correctly.

On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held the the lease provision at issue does not contain clear language providing that the determination of the operating expenses by the "Lessor's certified public accountant" is a condition precedent to the tenant's obligation to pay these expenses. The lease at issue does not contain language typically used to create a condition precedent, such as a statement that the tenant is obligated to pay operating expenses "if," "when," "after," or "provided that," "Lessor's certified public accountant" determines the operating expenses.

The Court further noted that even if lease contained a condition precedent, that condition had been fulfilled by the audit performed by the landlord's internal certified public accountant (the MDOT Office of Audits). The Court rejected the tenant's argument that the certified public accountant be "independent" should be reasonably implied since the lease referred to "Lessor's certified public accountant" and did not contain the word "independent." In that regard, the Court stated "if the parties to a contract intend that a certified public accountant specified in the contract be 'independent,' the contract would specifically state that requirement." The Court further noted that even if the term "independent" is considered an implied term in this matter, that the Landlord and MDOT Office of Audits satisfied that condition since "Certified public accountants are held to professional, ethical and work standards by the very nature of their training and certification."

Finally the Court held that, where a contract provides that a determination rendered by a designated person is "final," that determination is binding on the parties and cannot be contested in the absence of bad faith or fraud. The Court noted that generally parties to a contract are entitled to turn to the courts to resolve disputes arising from a contract, but that the parties to a contract can waive that right and provide that a designated person has authority to render a final and binding decision.

In order for the contract to foreclose or waive the right of a party to challenge or litigate the conclusions of a third party, the contract must use unequivocal language that unmistakably evidences the parties' intent that the third party's determination is final, binding, and conclusive. The language in the lease in question, that the statement of operating expenses be "determined by Lessor's certified public accountant," was deemed to be sufficient to show that parties' intent that the determination constitutes a "final determination" between the parties that can be challenged only on the narrow grounds of bad faith or fraud.

The full opinion is available in PDF.