Posts

Time Limitations on Bringing a Contract Lawsuit and How Laches May Apply

/in , /by

In previous articles I have discussed a few broad methods for getting out of contract in Minnesota, as well as how an opposing party may be able to stop you from claiming a right under contract by invoking equitable estoppel. This article is closely related with those topics and deals with the timing of claiming a right under contract, and how unreasonable delay can bar an otherwise valid legal claim.

Statute of Limitations and How the Doctrine of Laches Works

It is generally understood that a legal action (or the right to sue someone) is governed by a statute of limitations. For a civil case based on something such as breach of contract, a statute of limitations establishes a time limit for suing someone starting from the time when the right to assert a claim first arose (e.g. when the person harmed first discovered or could have discovered that they were harmed) . The applicable statute of limitations for breach of contract in Minnesota is Minn. Stat. Section 541.05, subd. 1(1) (2010). Section 541.05 provides for a six year statute of limitations for action upon a contract or other obligation, express or implied, unless another limitation is expressly prescribed.

This seems simple enough, but other laws, such as the State Uniform Commercial Code may modify this limit, and the doctrine of laches can confuse things further. Note also that the common law doctrine Quod nullum tempus occurrit regi (or “No time runs against the King) can exempt some government entities from statutes of limitations and/or the application of the doctrine of laches. That is why it is essential to retain an experienced Minnesota contract attorney as soon as possible after your contract issue arises.

As alluded to above, in addition to the statute of limitations, the doctrine of laches plays an important part in determining whether a civil lawsuit was brought in a timely fashion. Laches is an equitable doctrine intended to prevent a party who has not been diligent in asserting a known legal right from recovering at the expense of another party who has been prejudiced by the delay. An example of a situation where laches may apply is where a party waits for essential witnesses that could support an opposing party’s claims or defenses to die before asserting a legal right. However, for the doctrine of laches to be applied in such a case, the prejudice to the party claiming laches must be the result of unreasonable delay. If the essential witnesses died before there is unreasonable delay, the death of those witnesses alone, even if it greatly prejudiced a party, does not mean that laches is applicable.

It is also essential to understand that laches is not an available defense in a contract action where only strict legal rights are in controversy. In those types of cases, only the applicable statute of limitations will bar a claim. This means that if your case depends only upon application of law to the language of the contract, then laches is likely not applicable.

However, if there is more at issue than strict legal rights under a contract and you are seeking equitable relief in addition to laches, then Minnesota law provides that the doctrine of laches may bar the lawsuit, even if the statute of limitations would not! While it may seem strange that a lawsuit brought within the time allowed by the statute of limitations can be untimely, this makes sense if you keep in mind that a delay in asserting the known legal right can be so unreasonable and can so adversely affect a party that it would be inequitable to allow the lawsuit to proceed.

Nevertheless, a couple important issues should be kept in mind. First, claiming only laches will not likely be successful in a contract case. A party must assert that there are other events that occurred that give rise to equitable relief (e.g. estoppel, fraud, duress, etc.) or laches itself is likely to be of little help. Second, laches concerns the question of whether a party has been unreasonable in asserting a known legal right, a broader category than a mere legal claim. To illustrate this, imagine two parties enter a contract where Company A promises to pay Company B in multiple payments for work Company B has done for Company A. Company B also has the right to notify Company A in writing and request Company A to pay in full (i.e. “call the loan” or require Company A to “purchase the loan”). Company A sets up a payment process through a third party that fails, but through no fault of Company A. The third party notifies only Company B of the problem on two occasions. Company B does nothing and waits seven years before realizing during an audit that it has not been paid. Company B then notifies Company A and requests payment in full (including years of accumulated interest) and then sues when Company A refuses. Company A asserts laches (among other equitable claims) and Company B contends that it sued Company A immediately after the refusal to pay in full, thus there was no unreasonable delay in bringing the lawsuit and laches cannot apply. However, the legal right to which laches applies is not the lawsuit (or legal claim), but rather the contract right to require the Company A pay in full after written notice (the legal right). There is no question that Company B delayed in asking Company A to purchase the loan. A court may take this under consideration and allow Company A to use laches as a defense.

Finally, Minnesota courts consider the following factors when deciding whether the doctrine of laches applies to a particular case:
1) Availability of the defense as determined by the nature of the action;
2) Reasons for delay;
3) Prejudice; and
4) Policy considerations.

The court may: find that your case involves a special situation where the doctrine of laches specifically does not apply; accept that there were legitimate reasons for delay; determine that the resulting prejudice was not severe enough support claiming laches; and/or take into account broad policy considerations that may suggest that laches is not appropriate in your case. Additionally, laches is an affirmative defense to a legal claim by another party. This means that the party claiming laches will bear the burden of showing facts and arguments that fulfill the elements of equitable estoppel in that particular jurisdiction. Contract litigation in Minnesota can be complex and you should retain a contract lawyer as soon as possible.

Conclusion

As always, issues such as complicated contract litigation and asserting laches as a defense to another party’s claim involve important legal considerations. It is also important that the consequences of particular actions should be evaluated appropriately. These issues should be analyzed by a skilled contract attorney who will be able to conduct proper legal analysis based on the particular facts of your case. Sherayzen Law Office can help you analyze your case, evaluate your options, and provide specialized advice on how to proceed with your contract litigation.

Call the professional tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. at (952) 500-8159 to discuss your case with our contract litigation attorney!

Contract Litigation Lawyers Minneapolis: Equitable Estoppel in Contract Lawsuits

/in , /by

As noted in a previous article, I occasionally have clients who are looking for a way to get out of their contractual obligations. I mentioned five broad methods for getting out of contract: 1) exit provisions in the contract; 2) validity of the contract; 3) contract construction; 4) excuse for non-performance; and 5) breach. If your contract dispute cannot be resolved and proceeds to litigation, irrespective of whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant, the opposing party may attempt to stop you from claiming a right under the contract. They may in fact attempt to claim that your argument under one of the five methods above is not relevant, even if true. One way they can argue this is through equitable estoppel.

What is Equitable Estoppel?

Very generally, estoppel can prevent a claimant from asserting a legal claim against someone else if the claim contradicts what that person has said or done previously. Equitable estoppel is generally used as a defense in contract actions and prevents one party from using false language or conduct (a misrepresentation) to induce another party to act in a certain way that ends up hurting that person. Essentially, equitable estoppel prevents gaining an unfair advantage through dishonest conduct. It is very important to note that equitable estoppel is an affirmative defense to a legal claim by another party. This means that the party raising the issue of equitable estoppel will bear the burden of showing facts and arguments that fulfill the elements of equitable estoppel in that particular jurisdiction. This and other complexities of contract litigation are why it is crucial to retain a Minnesota contract lawyer as soon as possible.

Equitable Estoppel in Minnesota

In Minnesota, the prevailing law requires that a party claiming the affirmative defense of equitable estoppel must prove the following elements: 1) there must be conduct, acts, language, or silence amounting to a representation or a concealment of material facts; 2) these facts must be known to the party estopped (i.e. the party accused of unfair conduct) at the time of the conduct, or at least the circumstances must be such that knowledge of them is necessarily imputed to him; 3) the truth concerning these facts must be unknown to the other party claiming the benefit of the estoppel, at the time when such conduct was done, and at the time when it was acted upon by him; 4) the conduct must be done with the intention, or at least with the expectation, that it will be acted upon by the other party, or under such circumstances that it is both natural and probable that it will be so acted upon; 5) the conduct must be relied upon by the other party, and in reliance he must be led to act upon it; and 6) he must in fact act upon it in such a manner as to change his position for the worse – in other words, he must suffer a loss if he were compelled to surrender or forego or alter what he has done by reason of the first party being permitted to repudiate his conduct and to assert rights inconsistent with it. Lunning v. Land O’Lakes, 303 N.W.2d 452, 457 (Minn. 1980). Different jurisdictions may vary in the elements they require to show that equitable estoppel is warranted.

It is also vital for clients and attorneys to understand that estoppel depends heavily on the unique details of each case and therefore is ordinarily a fact question for a jury to decide. This means that if one party claims equitable estoppel, the other party usually may not be able to resolve the lawsuit by asking the judge for summary judgment in their favor.

Summary judgment is a form of asking the judge to resolve the case at the beginning of the litigation. Summary judgment may be granted by a judge, prior to trial, when the judge can determine that there are no genuine issues of material fact and one party deserves to prevail without proceeding to the jury. Summary judgment is usually not appropriate in cases where one party is claiming the benefit of equitable estoppel because as explained above, it depends heavily on questions of fact such as: what unfair acts or misrepresentation allegedly happened; whether either party had knowledge of the truth regarding the misrepresentation; whether the party accused of acting unfairly meant for the misrepresentation to be relied upon; whether the party claiming equitable estoppel actually relied on the conduct; et cetera.

The reality that equitable estoppel claims are generally not resolved through summary judgments may or may not be beneficial to your particular case. It is crucial that you have a knowledgeable contract litigation attorney who can analyze the legal issues and determine whether there are any valid issues of equitable estoppel in your case.

Conclusion

Issues of claiming any affirmative defense in contract litigation, especially equitable estoppel, are complicated. Whether you wish to use equitable estoppel as a defense, or you suspect that the other party may wish to assert the defense against you, there are important legal considerations to be made and consequences to be assessed. These issues should be analyzed by a skilled Minnesota contract litigation attorney who will be able to conduct proper legal analysis based on the particular facts of your case. Sherayzen Law Office can help you analyze your case, evaluate your options for moving forward, and can provide specialized advise on how to proceed with your contract litigation.

Preparing for Business Contract Litigation in Minnesota: Recordkeeping Techniques

/in , /by

Since most of the business-to-business relationships are organized on the basis of written business contracts, it is inevitable that contract disputes would arise between businesses. Frequently, these disputes are serious enough to lead to business contract litigation between the relevant parties

Therefore, it is important for any business to prepare for such a possibility ahead of the actual commencement of the contract litigation. One of the most crucial (to the success of such litigation) tasks of a business owner is to maintain good records. Proper recordkeeping is essential to successful contract litigation, and, hence, this article lists the following five techniques for the business owners on what type of business records should be kept and how to best organize them.

1. Keep an original copy of your contract

Keeping your original copy is the most basic step in preparation for a contract litigation. Yet, it is shocking how many business owners ignore this. By “original copy” of a contract, I mean one of the counterparts of the contract which bears the original signatures of all parties. Where only one copy of a contract is signed, then you should keep this original. If, for some reason, the decision is made that the other party would keep a copy of a contract, you should request a copy of the contract for your records. This situation is especially common in joint ventures and inter-corporate agreements, but it is very unusual in business-to-business dealings.

The contract should be kept in a separate folder in a safe place. However, do not file your contract in a place that you would not remember. If your business has designated an officer of your company to keep business records, you should make sure that you know the filing system adopted by that officer and where the most important files are.

2. File “negotiation” notes and documents

In addition to the contract itself, you should file all notes, documents, and printed copies of e-mails that were produced in connection with the negotiation of a contract. “All” means “all” – any of these documents may be important to resolve an ambiguity in the contract later as well as to demonstrate a party’s intent.

There are two types of “negotiation” materials: exchanged and internal. The exchanged materials are the notes and documents that were shared with the other parties to the contract during the negotiation process. Generally, in a business-to-business setting, these types of documents are not covered by the attorney-client privileged. Absent a non-disclosure agreement stating to the contrary, it is likely that these documents would not even be considered as proprietary.

The internal materials are the notes and documents that were produced in connection with the negotiation process but were never shared with anyone outside of the company (with the exception of the company’s business lawyer). Examples could include: internal profit-loss assessments, corporate documents (such as board memorandums), assessment of risk, and so on. These documents should be marked as “proprietary information” and filed in a separate folder also marked as “proprietary information.”

Moreover, the internal documents produced by the company’s lawyer should be marked as “attorney-client privileged”; such documents should be filed in a separate folder also marked as “attorney-client privileged”.

All folders of exchanged and internal materials, including the folder containing attorney-client privileged information, should be kept together with the contact. Such organization of documents will be very useful for discovery purposes during the litigation and can save you thousands of dollars in attorney and accounting fees.

3. File Contract-Modification Materials

Documents discussing and potentially modifying the already executed contract should also be filed in a separate folder and kept together with the rest of the documents described above. While some of these documents may be obvious (such as a letter entitled “Request for Contract Modification), others may be much more difficult to classify, especially if the potentially modifying circumstances are not explicitly discussed in the contract.

Therefore, in order to take full advantage of this advanced recordkeeping technique, the business owner should consult his lawyer. An experienced legal professional with deep understanding of contact law and the facts of a specific case is in the best position to determine which documentary materials may be construed as contract modification.

4. Document Contract Performance

This is another sophisticated recordkeeping technique that requires understanding of the term “usage of trade”. Armed with this knowledge, your business lawyer will be able to determine how to document the parties’ contract performance and whether this performance is modifying or has modified the contract.

5. Record Your Company’s Intent and Understanding

This is probably the most flexible advanced recordkeeping technique aimed specifically at the possible future contract dispute. Basically, this is a technique that uses the management structure of the company to create business records regarding the intention and interpretation of a contract. As business records, this evidence of intent and understanding will most likely be admissible in court. The most common example of this technique are corporate board minutes (in the corporate context) or Board of Governors resolutions (for the LLCs).

Again, due to the level of sophistication and legal knowledge required to accurately record a company’s intent and understanding of a contract, it highly advisable that you hire a business lawyer to draft the relevant documents.

Conclusion

Good recordkeeping is crucial to successful business contract litigation. The techniques listed above do not constitute an exhaustive list of recordkeeping suggestions, but they should provide the minimal necessary structure that is likely to be cost-effective and highly efficient in a contract litigation context. Not all of the techniques cited in this article can be implemented by a business owner. Therefore, it is crucial to retain the services of a business contract attorney to fully protect from and prepare your business for the possible contract litigation in the future.

Sherayzen Law Office can help you create and implement a recordkeeping system appropriate for your industry and compatible with your business model.

Call NOW to discuss your case with an experienced business contract lawyer!

Contract Lawyers Minneapolis | Getting Out of Contract in Minnesota

/in , /by

This is an odd article to write for a Minnesota contract lawyer who spends most of his contract law practice making sure that the terms of a contract are enforceable. Yet, occasionally, I have clients who are looking for a way to get out of a contract for many reasons. Some of these clients suddenly found themselves in a situation where compliance with the contract terms is no longer economically feasible or desirable. Others have personal reasons which make continuation of compliance with a contract non-practical and even personally disagreeable (especially in business partnerships).

Lawyer-Written versus Non-Lawyer Written Contracts

For the purposes of getting out of contract, the situations where one party suddenly wishes to attack the enforceability of a contract can be divided into two large categories. The first category involves contracts written, or rather copied from other sources (especially Internet), by the parties themselves. In this case, the contracts are usually inadequately drafted and contain many errors and omissions. Naturally, this type of contracts is much easier to attack for someone who wishes to avoid his contractual obligations.

On the other hand, the contracts in the second category are drafted by Minnesota contract attorneys. Usually, these contracts are based on the court-tested provisions, involve multiple levels of defense, constrict venues of attack, and prescribe certain procedures for disputing the enforceability of the contract. These contracts present a much more difficult target than those in the first category.

Methods for Getting Out of Contract

Irrespective of the category to which a contract belongs, Minnesota contract litigation lawyers usually utilize five broad methods for helping their clients avoid their contractual obligations.

1. Exit Provision in the Contract

First, the most simple method is to take advantage of the provisions that a contract already contains. Most of the contracts I draft for my clients contain negotiated “exit” provisions, which prescribe the procedure for either contract termination or withdrawal of a party from a contract.

This is especially true in the case of entity governance contracts such as Partnership Agreements, Member Control and Operating Agreements (for multi-member LLCs), corporate Bylaws, and so on. Also, Independent Contractor Agreements, in order to comply with law, often include a very detailed contract termination procedure. Sales contracts often utilize a “liquidated damages” clause to cap the amount of damages.

2. Validity of Contract

The second method is to attack the validity of the contract itself. Some of these attacks, such as lack of adequate consideration or the Statute of Frauds, will be based on the terms or form (i.e. oral versus written) of a contract; others, such as lack of legal capacity or the doctrine of unconscionability, will focus on the broad factual context which led to the creation of the contract. The precise method of attacking the validity of the contract should be chosen by a Minnesota contract litigation lawyer (if you live in Twin Cities, try locating a Minneapolis contract litigation attorney or St. Paul contract litigation attorney).

3. Contract Construction

The third method is to reinterpret the contract in such a way as to modify parties’ obligations. Here, the issue is the contract construction – interpretation of contractual terms based on the rules of contract construction and the facts of a specific case, including the parties’ course of dealing. If this is a contract for a sale of goods, UCC terms may determine the outcome. This method requires a very deep understanding of contract law. Therefore, only Minnesota contract litigation lawyers should be involved in implementing this strategy (again, if you live in Twin Cities, try locating a Minneapolis contract litigation attorney or St. Paul contract litigation attorney).

It should be noted that contract construction is involved to a varying degree in all of the methods described in this article. This is why it is crucial to retain a Minnesota contact lawyer as soon as possible.

4. Excuse for Non-Performance

The fourth method is to find an excuse for the non-performance of a party’s obligations under the contract. Notice the difference between the fourth and the second method – in the fourth method, the contract is assumed to be valid, but a party’s breach of this contract is discharged for some reason. Examples of this method include: doctrines of Impossibility and Frustration of Purpose, discharge by a later contract (for example: rescission, release, et cetera), change in law, and so on. It is up to your particular Minnesota contract litigation lawyer to determine which of these excuses applies and how to prove it in court.

5. Breach

Finally, the fifth method is to just breach the contract. Generally, there are two situations where a Minnesota contract lawyer may advise this course of action. First, whether the benefits of the breach of contract are likely to substantially outweigh the damages the breaching party will need to pay. Second, where the contact is breached in such a way as to significantly reduce the damages. Again, the circumstances of a particular case will determine whether this method should be utilized.

Conclusion

Getting out of contract in Minnesota is not easy. Yet, it may be possible if there is a right combination of facts and legal strategy. Once the plan of attack is established, its implementation will require skillful implementation by your contract lawyer.

Sherayzen Law Office can help you analyze your case, choose the legal strategy right for you, and vigorously and skillfully implement this strategy in negotiations as well as in court.

Call NOW to talk with an experienced contract law attorney!

Contract Litigation Lawyers Minnesota | Understanding Contract Litigation

/in , /by

Contract litigation permeates the very fabric of advanced economic societies. The primary reason for this widespread presence of this type of litigation is because contracts provide the most common and basic means of conducting transactions between individuals and especially businesses. Contracts, whether written or oral, govern the everyday economic relations. Every time you buy something for a certain price at a store, you agree to a contract. Every time your business hires a worker, it enters a contract.

Since contracts can be found almost everywhere in our economic lives, it is little wonder that disputes often arise between the parties about the exact terms of what they have agreed to or what their contractual obligations are.

Contract litigation is a civilized way to settling these contract disputes. It is a process where the parties to a contract, usually represented by contract litigation attorneys, present their respective arguments to an impartial judge of the relevant jurisdiction the laws of which govern the interpretation of the contracts and even which laws apply. Usually, the parties’ arguments revolve around three common themes. First, interpretation of the contract and the parties’ rights and obligations. Second, enforcement of a party’s contractual rights or obligations. Third, obtaining remedy for whatever damage produced as a result of the other party’s breach of contract. Usually, the remedy is limited to recovering damages, but there are situations where a party will seek an order from the court to compel the other party to perform as promised (this is known as “specific performance”). In some situations, an injunction prohibiting a party from doing something may be appropriate.

A lot of people unfamiliar with contract litigation commit a common mistake of thinking that contract interpretation is limited solely to the language that can be found in the contract itself. While ambiguous, competing or contradictory clauses may form the core of a party’s argument, contract litigation lawyers usually have to also analyze the particular facts of a case which may be relevant to the interpretation of the disputed language of the contract.

Beyond these basic litigation themes, contract litigation involves a myriad of other procedural and substantive decisions: assessment by contract litigation lawyers of whether a case should be litigated, where to file the case, the laws of which jurisdiction of should apply, what evidence should be presented, who should testify, how would a judge interpret the contract given the trends in the laws of a relevant jurisdiction, and so on. Therefore, it is very important to involve a contract litigation lawyer as early as possible in the contract litigation process.

Sherayzen Law Office can guide you through this labyrinth of procedural and substantive issues and litigate the case for you. When you retain Sherayzen Law Office to represent you in a contract dispute litigation, you get a vigorous advocate of your legal position who is thorough, detail-orientated and possesses strong litigation skills, with the analytical ability to identify and achieve effective resolutions. We recognize that litigation is a means to an end and structure our litigation strategies in such a way as to protect and enforce your business interests.

Call NOW  to discuss your case with a Minnesota contract litigation lawyer!