The facts of this case were – and are – rather fascinating.

In this case, the plaintiff, a Hong Kong garment manufacturer, sold the defendant several large containers of clothing.  But here’s the interesting part:  instead of standard invoicing for the shipments, both parties to the deal used a “double invoicing” method in order to avoid United States customs duties. The first invoice, which understated the amount and value of the clothing, was presented to customs officials for purposes of calculating the amount of customs duties that were owed;  a second invoice which set forth the actual value of the goods seeking payment was then sent by plaintiff to the defendants.

When the defendants failed to pay on these invoices, leaving an outstanding balance totaling nearly $2 million, this lawsuit seeking recovery in breach of contract, business fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious interference and conversion followed.

The defendants in this case definitely merit the “chutzpah” award: they sought to dismiss the claim – and thereby avoid having to pay for the goods that they ordered, received, and presumably profited from – on the grounds that the contract between the parties was illegal, and therefore, unenforceable.

The Court articulated the general rule as follows:

“In New York ‘[i]llegal contracts are, as a general rule, unenforceable.’ Lloyd Capital Corp. v. Henchar, Inc., 80 N.Y.2d 124, 127 (1992) … An agreement which is lawful on its face and which does not contemplate or necessarily entail unlawful conduct in its performance is enforceable by the promisee even though he engages in unlawful activity in the agreement’s performance.”

Applying these rules to reject the defendants’ argument, the Court stated as follows:

“It appears that the double invoicing was only indirectly related to the contract, rather than being “central to or a dominant part of the plaintiff’s whole course of conduct in performance of the contract … Defendants’ invocation of the illegality doctrine is unpersuasive in that they seek to use the doctrine “as a sword for personal gain rather than a shield for the public good.”

I have no doubt that justice was achieved by this decision.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

As I’m sure you know, not all liquidated damages clauses are enforceable under New York law; on the other hand, not all of them are unenforceable either.

To the contrary, New York’s courts have long held (as far back as 1977) that  “a liquidated damages provision is enforceable where the fixed amount bears a ‘reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation’ (JMD Holding Corp., supra, 4 N.Y.3d at 380, 795 N.Y.S.2d at 507 (quoting Truck Rent-A-Center v. Puritan Farms 2nd,Inc., 41 N.Y.2d 420, 425, 393 N.Y.S.2d 365, 369 (1977)).”

New York’s courts have shown an increasing tendency to honor these provisions when they are mutually negotiated between two sophisticated businesses that are on equal, or roughly equal footing; conversely, the courts have refused to honor liquidated damage provisions where they are a penalty that is out of scale with foreseeable losses, or where the provisions are being unilaterally imposed by one side on a far weaker second half to a deal, which is also known as “unconscionability.” JMD Holding Corp., supra, 4 N.Y.3d at 378-85, 795 N.Y.S.2d at 506-10; Stenda Realty, LLC v. Kornman, 67 A.D.3d 996, 889 N.Y.S.2d 639 (2d Dep’t 2009).

As a strictly practical matter, the following bears emphasis: a court’s determination as to the validity – or invalidity – of a particular liquidated damages clause will often have to await the end of a case. And the reason for this should be fairly evident: the relationship – or the lack thereof – between the liquidated damages clause and foreseeable losses is a fact-specific one, and requires a full and detailed analysis of the facts of the case. Consequently, as part of your initial contract negotiations, you should consider whether this provision will have enough bite to make it worthwhile to litigate down the line, if this deal ultimately falls apart.

Stated differently (and to quote many of my gurus, including a 15th century mystic): begin with the end in mind.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

According to the plaintiff in the Suffolk County case of Kimelstein v. Kimelstein, he was wrongfully frozen out of his 50% interest in a property that he and brother had acquired jointly through a non-party corporation.  More specifically, he contends that pursuant to an oral agreement he made with his brother in 2007, the plaintiff agreed to forgo his interest in the non-party corporation and sell his interest in the Defendant corporation as well as the real property it owned for the sum of $350,000, in exchange for his brother’s promise to make weekly payments in the amount of $850, until such time as Defendants were able to refinance the real property, after which the balance of the $350,000 would become due.

As I’m sure you can guess, the defendants stopped making payments, and now, they moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff’s claim is barred under New York’s Statute of Frauds because the claim pertains to real estate and there was no written contract.

Although the Court was constrained to dismiss the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims, the Court was clearly troubled by the facts of this case, and therefore allowed the plaintiff’s equitable claims for unjust enrichment and the imposition of a constructive trust to survive, stating:

“Plaintiff’s allegations that he was a family member, that Defendant promised him $350,000 to forego his interest in the property owned by L&J as well as the corporation, that Plaintiff spent time and money over seven years investing in L&J, are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss …

“Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants received valuable benefits, including his contributions over the years to the corporate entities and toward the purchase of the real property; that he has given up any claim to ownership of stock in at least one of the corporations and that it would be inequitable for the individual Defendant to hold title to both without affording plaintiff some sort of compensation.”

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

In a case that they brought in Federal Court in Upstate New York, Opto Generic Devices Inc. (“OGD”) sued Air Products & Chemicals Inc. (“ACC”) for breach of contract and for consequential damages, asserting that it lost profits when the defendant did not buy its products. In this case, the defendant admitted that the parties had entered into a series of agreements that delineated the scope of work to develop certain products for plaintiff, and included a $400,000 agreement for license rights to these products. In light of the ongoing working relationship between the parties, and the exchange of nearly $1,000,000 between them with regard to the development of this product, the plaintiff was caught off guard when the defendant never actually bought the finished product.

But the plaintiff had one “small” problem with their case – while the contract set forth the parties’ responsibilities as to patent prosecution and maintenance, commercial rights and licenses (i.e., it was a development contract), there was absolutely no provision requiring ACC to buy any OGD products. Consequently, I can’t say I’m surprised that the Court dismissed this aspect of their breach of contract action.

You know the old saying about what happens when you assume something …

It’s just another example of the costs of failing to reduce your agreements to writing.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

In Al-Bawaba.com, Inc. v. Nstein Tech. Corp., a decision that was discussed in last week’s New York Law Journal, a Kings trial court dismissed their lawsuit against a software company that sought more than $1 million in damages for the defendant’s alleged breach of contract to provide software that would translate the news from English to Arabic.  In this case, there were substantial negotiations over price, the manner and time in which the payments would be made for the software license. And although some of these e-mails went so far as to say “we have an agreement in principle,” no further, formal contract was ever executed.

As noted by the Court, “the record in this matter fully supports defendant’s contention that the parties intended to execute a written agreement, foreclosing any argument that an enforceable oral agreement was ever reached, or even intended … [P]laintiff’s statement that before an agreement could be “filed away in the company’s filing cabinets, it has [sic] to be reviewed by a lawyer and signed” convincingly demonstrate that, as far as plaintiff was concerned, additional terms needed to be resolved and reduced to writing prior to entering an enforceable agreement.” In legalese, this claim was barred by New York’s Statute of Frauds.

The worst part of it, from the plaintiff’s perspective is this: they had a full 15-page contract in hand, but never had their lawyers finish reviewing it.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.