Breach of Contract Cases

Given the determination that the parties entered into an express contract, the trial court erred by awarding Plaintiff damages based on unjust enrichment. The trial court, however, did not err by denying Defendant's breach of contract, slander of title, and other counterclaims. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

State Health Plan retired state employees partial summary judgment interlocutory appeal substantial right US Const. art. I sec. 10 no impairment of contract unilateral contract NC Const. art. I, sec. 19

Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when it determined that defendants-appellants were not the prevailing parties because both parties were in breach of contract. Competent and credible evidence supported the trial court's determination of damages in favor of plaintiffs-cross appellants. The trial court's determination that defendants-appellants did not prove that they were entitled to advertising costs was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in dismissing or failing that plaintiffs-cross appellants failed to prove their claims of unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The damages calculation in favor of the independent contractor work was not in error. Plaintiffs-cross appellants' assertion of error in the trial court's damages award for independent contractor services was not presented to the trial court and may not be heard for the first time on appeal. All assignments of error and cross assignments of error are overruled and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Breach of contract Hospital termination of physician's employment contract Contractual right to exercise professional judgment Wrongful discharge and public policy Defamation and defense of qualified privilege

The plaintiff, Sean Gannon, appealed from orders of the Superior Court relating his motion to vacate an arbitration award issued in connection with the termination of his employment as a firefighter by the defendant, the City of Pawtucket, in November 2013. Following the termination, the local firefighters' union brought a grievance against the city on Gannon's behalf, which was arbitrated pursuant to the firefighters' collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator found in favor of the city, and Gannon, on his own behalf, filed a motion in Superior Court to vacate the arbitration award. A hearing justice denied Gannon's motion to substitute the union as a plaintiff, granted the city's motion to dismiss Gannon's motion to vacate the arbitration award, and awarded the city reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court held that Gannon did not have standing to challenge the arbitration decision on his own behalf, and that the hearing justice properly denied Gannon's motion to substitute the union as a plaintiff because the motion would not have related back to the original filing and was therefore not timely. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the orders of the Superior Court denying Gannon's motion to amend, dismissing his motion to vacate the arbitration award, and awarding reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

Trial court's determination that appellants did not establish that a novation occurred in this case was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

At an earlier time, Byron L. Jackson, Jr. (plaintiff) and defendant Jay Howard Crippen operated a company named Swiss Technologies, Inc. There were disagreements. The parties engaged in mediation. Following mediation, the parties, including Swiss, entered into a three year consulting agreement for Jackson pursuant to which he was to be paid $30,000 annually, "less the cost of health and related insurance." The contract provides that plaintiff "shall be entitled to health and related insurance . . . on the same term as other employees of [Swiss]." The parties stipulated that every other employee paid no more than one-half the cost of their health insurance, and employer paid the other half. Defendants Crippen and Swiss (collectively defendants) deducted the full amount of health insurance premiums from plaintiff's pay. Plaintiff brought this action for breach of contract. The trial court held that the contract was unambiguous, and that it required defendants to pay one-half of plaintiff's health care insurance costs. We affirm.