Archive | Breach of contract

RSS feed for this section

Pacific Hide & Fur Depot v. Emineth Custom Homes, Inc.

Pacific Hide & Fur Depot v. Emineth Custom Homes, Inc., 2016 MT 114 (May 17, 2016) (McGrath, C.J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: Whether the district court properly entered judgment following the jury’s verdict. 

Short Answer: No. It erred in assuming Pacific was entitled to a refund of its down payment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Facts: Pacific put a warehouse construction and office/shop remodeling project out for bid in 2011, and awarded the contract to Emineth as the low bidder. An unsuccessful bidder threatened to cancel a rail siding lease if Emineth were allowed to proceed, and Pacific revoked the contract with Emineth. Shortly thereafter Pacfici entered into two contracts with Emineth, one for renovating the office/shop and one to build employee housing.…

Fitterer v. Mullin

Fitterer v. Mullin, 2015 MT 272 (Sept. 15, 2015) (Shea, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether there was a valid contract between A&C and Fitterer for the sale of fertilizer and chemicals; (2) whether Fitterer is entitled to prejudgment interest; and (3) whether Clint is personally liable for money owed under A&C’s contract with Fitterer.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, as a UCC contracts for goods; (2) yes; and (3) no.

Affirmed on issues 1 & 2, reversed on issue 3, & remanded for entry of an amended judgment

Facts: Fitterer is a North Dakota corporation licensed to do business in Montana. A&C is a Montana corporation, and Clint is the president and sole shareholder. In May 2007, A&C bought fertilizer and chemical from Fitterer on account.…

Harris v. St. Vincent Healthcare

Harris v. St. Vincent Healthcare, 2013 MT 207 (July 25, 2013) (5-0) (Cotter, J.; McKinnon, J., concurring)

Consolidated appeal with Harris v. Billings Clinic

Issue: Did the district court err in dismissing the plaintiffs’ breach of contract and constructive fraud claims for failure to state a claim?

Short Answer: No.

Affirmed

Hughes v. Hughes

Hughes v. Hughes, 2013 MT 176 (July 2, 2013) (5-0) (Morris, J.)
Issues: (1) Whether Johnny’s undesignated payments to his parents, Jack and Shirley, restarted the statute of limitations on the 1989 promissory note; (2) whether Jack and Shirley possess a life estate in the new house or a right to any of the insurance proceeds; (3) whether Jack is entitled to an easement for stock water across Johnny’s property; and (4) whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority or miscalculated damages.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) no; (3) yes; (4) no.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part & remanded

McCulley v. American Land Title Co.

McCulley v. American Land Title Co., 2013 MT 89 (April 9, 2013) (5-0) (Cotter. J.)

Issue: Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to the bank and the title company.

Short Answer: (1) Yes to the title company; (2) yes to the contract and negligence claims against the bank; (3) no as to the fraud claim against the bank.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part

Conway v. Benefis Health System, Inc.

Conway v. Benefis Health System, Inc., 2013 MT 73 (March 19, 2013) (5-0) (Cotter, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly converted Conway’s motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment, and (2) whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Conway.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) no.

Affirmed in part & reversed in part