Breach of Contract Cases

Appeal from Business Court orders denying plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment whether defendant's contacts with North Carolina were sufficient to support a determination that personal jurisdiction existed.

Whether the trial court erred in applying the lex loci test, rather than the most significant relationship test, in determining whether summary judgment should have been granted with respect to plaintiffs' misappropriation of trade secrets claim whether the trial court erred in ruling on motions for summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony.

Whether the trial court erred in applying the lex loci test, rather than the most significant relationship test, in determining whether summary judgment should have been granted with respect to plaintiffs' misappropriation of trade secrets claim whether the trial court erred in ruling on motions for summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony.

The plaintiff, who had purchased certain residential real property in New Haven from the defendant, brought an action seeking damages for, inter alia, breach of contract for the defendant's failure under the contract to deliver a property that contained three legal dwelling units. The defendant purchased the property in 1979, and had used it as a three unit residence during his ownership. In 2011, the city building depart- ment sent a letter to the defendant, informing him that the department's records indicated that the property was a two unit residence, and that it may have been altered without approval from the building department. Thereafter, the defendant spoke with the building department's director, and the defendant believed that the matter was resolved. Subsequently, the defendant represented in a real estate listing that the property was a three unit residence and sold the property to the plaintiff in 2015, without informing the plaintiff of the 2011 letter. Thereafter, the plaintiff became aware of the 2011 letter upon inspecting the records of the building department on an unrelated matter. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court erred in finding that the city building department had not made a determination that the plaintiff's property contained only two residential units. Held: 1. The trial court did not err in finding that the city building department had not made a determination regarding the use and occupancy status of the property; contrary to the plaintiff's claim that the building depart- ment had determined that the property contained a two unit residence, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding, as the building department official testified that no determina- tion regarding the number of legal units had been made, no code viola- tions regarding the number of legal units had been communicated to the defendant, and

Motion for reconsideration granted original majority decision contained obvious errors. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery to decide issues of law trial court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing default and termination provisions in a commercial lease trial court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected one purchase offer and approved another purchase offer for a business in receivership.

The plaintiff subcontractor, E Co., sought to recover damages from the defendant, S Co., for, inter alia, breach of contract in connection with a dispute arising from a project relating to the expansion and renovation of a hospital. Pursuant to its contract with S Co., E Co. agreed to perform all electrical work for the project. The contract provided that E Co. had a duty to coordinate with S Co., that E Co. had made allowances for all hindrances and delays to its work, and that E Co. would work within S Co.'s schedule, which S Co. may revise from time to time. S Co. had the right to direct a change in E Co.'s work on written notice and, during the course of the project, thirty-eight change orders were issued. After several months, E Co. sent S Co. a notice, alleging a cardinal change to the contract due to issues that arose during the preceding months and asserting that it could only continue to perform under the contract if S Co. agreed to additional financial terms. S Co. responded that E Co.'s refusal to proceed under the contract constituted default and, the next day, S Co. terminated E Co. E Co. alleged that S Co. had breached the contract by its wrongful termination of E Co., and S Co. filed a counterclaim, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract. S Co. also filed a third-party complaint against K and T, the chief financial officer and president of E Co., respectively, alleging, inter alia, fraudulent conduct. The case was tried to the court, which rendered judgment in part for S Co. on its counterclaim, and in favor of K and T on the third-party complaint. On S Co.'s appeal and E Co.'s cross appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court properly rejected E Co.'s claim that there had been a cardinal change in the contract terms and properly concluded that E Co. breached the contract by abandoning the project: the court properly focused on the nature and impact of the delays on the work expected of and performed by E Co., which were not extraordinary in a pr