WWW.ABSTRACT.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstracts, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 |

«United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-2636 _ LoRoad, LLC lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Global Expedition ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2636

___________________________

LoRoad, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Global Expedition Vehicles, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

Submitted: February 11, 2015

Filed: June 1, 2015

____________

Before LOKEN, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

LoRoad, L.L.C., based in Oregon, negotiated to have Global Expedition Vehicles, L.L.C. (GXV), based in Missouri, build a custom expedition vehicle. With the project underway, the relationship broke down. LoRoad filed this diversity action to compel arbitration of the dispute, invoking the arbitration provision in a written Assembly Agreement allegedly entered into by the parties. GXV denied a valid, enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court1 held that LoRoad failed to accept the Assembly Agreement signed by GXV; therefore, the court could not enforce the arbitration provision in that Agreement. LoRoad appeals the resulting adverse summary judgment. We affirm.

I.

In September 2012, wilderness photographer Rodney Lough on behalf of LoRoad began negotiations with GXV for construction of a custom expedition vehicle to be used by LoRoad for Lough’s off-road photography expeditions. On October 1, GXV sent a proposed Assembly Agreement for Lough’s review. The Agreement contained terms sufficiently definite and complete that, had LoRoad accepted, it would have been a binding contract. The terms included a “nonrefundable deposit of $120,000 to be paid at contract signing,” and an arbitration clause. GXV also emailed Lough that it would purchase a 2001 BAE 6x6 truck for $110,000 to serve as the base for Lough’s custom vehicle. Each subsequent version of the Assembly Agreement included this specific truck in calculating the total cost to build.

Rather than accept the October 1 proposed Agreement, Lough returned a marked-up copy on October 9. GXV sent a revised Agreement on October 22, and after further negotiations, another revised Agreement on October 31. On November 2, LoRoad wired $120,000 to GXV, which René Van Pelt of GXV acknowledged on November 5. On November 16, Lough faxed GXV the October 31 draft Agreement with relatively minor handwritten notations and changes. In the space for LoRoad’s signature at the end of the Agreement, Lough wrote “LeeAnna Lough” (his wife and also a LoRoad principal) above the LoRoad signature line, and “By:” below that line.

The Honorable Sarah W. Hays, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2On November 28, Lough emailed, “We still have unfinished business.” Van Pelt responded with answers to “notes and questions that we received by fax on November 16th.” On December 6, GXV sent a receipt for the $120,000 with the subject line, “Contract Deposit,” and emailed a status report on acquiring the base vehicle. On December 11, after further communications, Van Pelt sent LoRoad a revised Build List, which was “Exhibit A” to the Assembly Agreement and listed specifications for the vehicle. Van Pelt noted, “Once I get a thumbs up on the Build List, I will revise the contract and email to you as a complete document set.” On December 15, Lough emailed Van Pelt, “I am still not feeling comfortable with how things are at the moment... We are very seriously looking at pulling out, at which point will [] want our money returned.” On January 30, 2013, Van Pelt emailed Rodney Lough, “Your BAE 6x6 in transit,” explaining GXV’s delay in getting the truck and predicting it would arrive at GXV on Friday. On Friday, February 1, Van Pelt emailed Lough a picture of the truck. On February 11, Lough emailed Van Pelt asking for a status report. Van Pelt responded that GXV’s engineering team had started work on the truck, would send it to be painted when they were done, and asked Lough to “respond via email that the color is staying per Build List: White.” The next documentary exchange frames the contract issue on appeal. On February 11, Lough emailed Van Pelt saying LoRoad “had no record of the parties’ creating and executing a final set of documents.” Lough asked GXV to send “a final set [of documents] incorporating everything we’ve come to agreement on” “for final review and then signatures, so we can get this thing moving.” Van Pelt responded that GXV received a signed contract from LoRoad on November 16.2 Lough replied he had no record of that, and asked Van Pelt to “send me a copy of what you have, GXV interpreted the handwritten “LeeAnna Lough” on the marked-up Agreement LoRoad sent on November 16 as an authorized LoRoad signature.

-3because we do not have one here nor do we have an executed copy from you either.” In response, Van Pelt returned a copy of the Agreement received from LoRoad on November 16, with Lough’s handwritten changes and with the addition of Michael Van Pelt’s signature on the GXV signature line, but without the critical Build List.

In a February 14 reply, Lough asked for the entire Agreement, stated he did not know where the document came from, and asserted, “That is NOT LeeAnna’s signature... I would never have authorized LeeAnna to sign a document that was not ready for signature and this document isn’t there and therefore we would not have signed it. I have emails from you going through and into December where the two of us continue finalizing the documents as they have not been completed.” Lough further stated, “We do want you guys to create this vehicle however we are no where near having the documents done... and while you have our commitment in the form of a $120k deposit, that in no way means that you have an agreement with us until the final documents are signed, sealed and delivered properly.” On February 22, Van Pelt sent a document titled “Assembly Agreement Addendum” dated February 2013, and a Build List dated December 11, 2012 (neither document is in the record on appeal). Lough responded: “Sending us an Addendum for a non-executed Assembly Agreement is not what you said you would do.” Lough “officially disputed your assertion that the Assembly Agreement is a signed and executed document.” On February 25, Lough reiterated LoRoad had not executed an agreement and described the $120,000 as a “good faith deposit,” not a payment under the Assembly Agreement. GXV then ceased work on the custom vehicle.





In March, LoRoad’s attorney began communicating with GXV. His first letter stated, “Lo Road is committed to purchasing the Expedition Vehicle” but “there is no final, executed contract in place.” The letter stated that, “according to all drafts of the Assembly Agreement, signed or not, GXV’s commencement of work was to begin 15 days after receipt of the deposit,” expressed concern about the delays, and asked for

-4certain action items to be completed, including a revised Build List. An attachment detailed eleven reasons why there was “No Executed Contract in Place.” On March 15, LoRoad’s attorney sent another letter, invoking the Adequate Assurances provision of the Uniform Commercial Code. GXV responded on March 16, “Global Expedition Vehicles contends that we do have an executed contract with the Lo Road, LLC. We have expended a great deal of money and engineering payroll, based on this contract.” Van Pelt sent an email on March 27 expressing surprise that Lough wanted to change the Build List because Lough advised on February 22 he wanted to proceed with the December 11, 2012 Build List. On April 19, LoRoad’s attorney sent a letter stating that GXV had failed to provide adequate assurances and was in material breach of the contract, and that LoRoad intended to institute arbitration pursuant to the Assembly Agreement. This petition to compel arbitration followed.

II.

LoRoad argues that the terms of the Assembly Agreement that GXV signed and faxed to LoRoad on February 13, 2013, included an agreement to arbitrate that is enforceable against GXV. If enforceable, the Assembly Agreement is “a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce” subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2. However, the parties agree that Missouri contract law governs the issue on appeal. Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and Missouri law, “[a] party who has not agreed to arbitrate a dispute cannot be forced to do so. Accordingly, the court must determine whether there is an agreement between those parties which commits the subject matter of the dispute to arbitration.” PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. v.

Christy Refractories, L.L.C., 225 F.3d 974, 977-78 (8th Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted); see Arrowhead Contracting, Inc. v. M.H. Wash., LLC, 243 S.W.3d 532, 535 (Mo. App. 2008). The party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden to prove a

-5valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Baier v. Darden Restaurants, 420 S.W.3d 733, 737 (Mo. App. 2014).

As the Assembly Agreement concerned the sale of “goods,” it is governed by Article 2 of Missouri’s Uniform Commercial Code. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.2General principles of contract law apply unless “displaced by the particular provisions” of the UCC. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.1-103. Under the UCC, “[a] contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract.” Mo. Rev.

Stat. § 400.2-204(1). Without question, the writing on which LoRoad relies was sufficiently definite to form a contract enforceable against GXV, including its arbitration provision. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.2-201(1). But a writing alone is insufficient if it does not establish that an agreement was reached between the parties;

the document must “indicate the consummation of a contract, not mere negotiations.” Howard Constr. Co. v. Jeff-Cole Quarries, Inc., 669 S.W.2d 221, 227 (Mo. App.

1983). Therefore, LoRoad must show an agreement between the parties. The district court concluded that the undisputed facts establish that LoRoad never accepted the Assembly Agreement. We agree.

The UCC “expands the traditional concept of a contract,” but it “continues the common-law principle that the intent of the parties to make a contract must be manifested.” Computer Network, Ltd. v. Purcell Tire & Rubber Co., 747 S.W.2d 669, 674 (Mo. App. 1988). Thus, the “core issue” is whether both LoRoad and GXV

intended to form a legally binding contract:

If the parties intended no binding agreement or contract, the rules of construction and interpretation will not establish one. If no intent is found, the inquiry is put to an end. If the expressions in the agreement are clear, the court determines the intent from a reading of the writing.

If the intent is not clearly expressed, then surrounding circumstances

–  –  –

Id. (emphasis added). The intent which we are concerned with is the parties’ objective intent and what a reasonably prudent person would have been led to believe from the actions or words of the parties. See id. at 675.

Here, if an authorized representative had signed the Assembly Agreement that LoRoad faxed to GXV on November 16, 2012, then the document was an offer,3 and both sides manifested the intent to form a binding contract when GXV signed that document and returned it to LoRoad on February 13, 2013. This was GXV’s contemporaneous interpretation of the effect of its action on February 13. But LoRoad immediately objected and countered with strong, indeed persuasive reasons why the marked-up document it faxed on November 16 was not a binding offer that GXV could accept, pointing out it was not LeeAnna Lough’s signature on the document, and she was not authorized to sign a contract binding LoRoad. Thus, this document did not clearly manifest LoRoad’s intent to form a binding contract.

Rather, it appears to be merely another mark-up of an Assembly Agreement that GXV had initially proposed and which the parties had been negotiating for over a month.

See FutureFuel Chem. Co. v. Lonza, Inc., 756 F.3d 641, 647 (8th Cir. 2014) (“ongoing negotiations between the parties over these terms demonstrates that there was no mutual assent”).

Looking beyond the contract document on which LoRoad relies, the undisputed facts establish clear, immediate, unequivocal rejection by LoRoad and its attorney An offer is “the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.” See Brown Mach., Div. of John Brown, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc., 770 S.W.2d 416, 419 (Mo. App. 1989), citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 24 (1981).

-7when GXV claimed in February 2013 that a binding contract had been formed. While such subsequent action would not revoke or nullify a contract already formed, it is relevant in resolving the ambiguity as to whether LoRoad intended to be bound to the terms of the marked-up form of contract it sent to GXV on November 16. This is precisely the analysis that this court and Missouri courts have conducted in resolving disputes over whether ongoing negotiations that included the exchange of multiple draft agreements resulted in a binding contract. See Arrowhead, 243 S.W.3d at 535no contract to arbitrate formed); Computer Network, 747 S.W.2d at 675 (contract formed); Howard, 669 S.W.2d at 228-29 (no contract); Shapleigh Inv. Co. v. Miller, 193 S.W.2d 931, 937 (Mo. App. 1946) (contract formed); FutureFuel, 756 F.3d at 647 (no contract); Conolly v. Clark, 457 F.3d 872, 876 (8th Cir. 2006) (e-mail correspondence following alleged hand-shake agreement showed continuing negotiations); Moses.com Securities, Inc. v. Comp. Software Sys., Inc., 263 F.3d 783, 784 (8th Cir. 2001) (no contract).



Pages:   || 2 |


Similar works:

«Mobilize Energy Efficiency IN AMERICA Fueling Clean Energy Jobs through Energy Savings New England Event January 9, 2012 Boston Convention and Exhibition Center Agenda Municipalities – How to Spur Private Sector Action with 7:30 – 8:00 AM Registration Community Level Programs 8:00 – 10: 00 AM Opening Sessions Sean Neill, Cycle 7 Welcome Address Todd Sbarro, Vermont Energy Investment Brian A. Joyce, Massachusetts State Senator Bradford Swing, City of Boston Mayor’s Office Contractors –...»

«The Scottish and English Religious Roots of the American Right to Arms: Buchanan, Rutherford, Locke, Sidney, and the Duty to Overthrow Tyranny David B. Kopel Many twenty-first century Americans believe that they have a God-given right to possess arms as a last resort against tyranny. One of the most important sources of that belief is the struggle for freedom of conscience in the United Kingdom during the reigns of Elizabeth I and the Stuarts. A moral right and duty to use force against...»

«The Blanchot/Beckett Correspondence: Situating the Writer/Writing at the Limen of Naught Curt G. Willits In 1943, in Faux pas, six years prior to Samuel Beckett’s famous aesthetic pronouncement in “Three Dialogues with Georges Duthuit” (“The expression that there is nothing to express, nothing with which to express, nothing from which to express, no power to express, no desire to express, together with the obligation to express”), 1 Maurice Blanchot wrote in his essay “From Dread to...»

«Presents EQUITY A film by Meera Menon (100 min., USA, 2016) Language: English Distribution Publicity Bonne Smith Star PR 1352 Dundas St. West Tel: 416-488-4436 Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M6J 1Y2 Fax: 416-488-8438 Tel: 416-516-9775 Fax: 416-516-0651 E-mail: starpr@sympatico.ca E-mail: info@mongrelmedia.com www.mongrelmedia.com @MongrelMedia MongrelMedia CAST Anna Gunn Naomi Bishop James Purefoy Michael Connor Sarah Megan Thomas Erin Manning Alysia Reiner Samantha Ryan FILMMAKERS Directed by Meera...»

«BlackBerry Pearl 8230 Smartphone Version: 4.6.1 User Guide SWD-565596-0127094238-001 Contents Shortcuts BlackBerry basics shortcuts Phone shortcuts Message shortcuts Attachment shortcuts Camera and video camera shortcuts Media shortcuts Browser shortcuts Calendar shortcuts Typing shortcuts Search shortcuts Map shortcuts Phone Phone basics Emergency calls Volume Voice mail Speed dial Voice dialing Conference calls Call logs Call forwarding Smart dialing TTY support Multiple phone numbers Phone...»

«Humboldt Marine Training NAVE VARADA Preparado por Ing. Boris L. GUERRERO B. Valparaíso, CHILE, 2011. INDICE DE MATERIAS Introducción.. 3 Acciones a tomar en caso de varada. 4 Cálculo de la fuerza para desvarar una nave. 7 Problema acerca de nave varada. 10 Problema resuelto.. 11 Forma de disminuir la fuerza normal N. 12 Otra forma de calcular N.. 12 Problema.. 13 Efecto de la marea sobre N. 14 Pérdida de estabilidad transversal por causa de varadas. 15 INTRODUCCIÓN Pueden...»

«Paper P2 (INT) Professional Level – Essentials Module Corporate Reporting (International) Tuesday 15 December 2009 Time allowed Reading and planning: 15 minutes Writing: 3 hours This paper is divided into two sections: Section A – This ONE question is compulsory and MUST be attempted Section B – TWO questions ONLY to be attempted Do NOT open this paper until instructed by the supervisor. During reading and planning time only the question paper may be annotated. You must NOT write in your...»

«ONESolution Getting Started Information Technology Cal Poly Corporation CPC Admin Building 15 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Phone: 805.756.5900 • Fax: 805.756.5052 Email: cpchelp@calpoly.edu Web Site: http://www.calpolycorporation.org/ Revised: February 2015 ONESolution User Guide Table of Contents I. An Introduction to the ONESolution User’s Guide 1.1. What is ONESolution? 1.2. The ONESolution Getting Started User’s Guide: who should read it, and what is its purpose? 1.3. Are there...»

«Manual on Recurring Problems in Criminal Trials Fifth Edition Federal Judicial Center 2001 By Honorable Donald S. Voorhees United States District Judge Western District of Washington Seattle, Washington Edited by Genevra Kay Loveland Revised to include cases decided during the Supreme Court’s 2000–2001 term and United States Court of Appeals cases reported through 212 F.3d 306 This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Center’s statutory mission to...»

«Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 Submission to Attorney General’s Department July 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 2 Legislation has not been shown to be necessary 3 Legislation is unnecessary 4 Legislation grants powers without appropriate checks, balances or compensation 5 Legislation interferes with procurement costs and risks 6 Comments on specific provisions 6.1 Section 313(2A): 7 Summary of Recommendations 1. Introduction Trident Subsea Cable Pty Limited...»

«Logical Omniscience via Proof Complexity Sergei Artemov and Roman Kuznets CUNY Graduate Center 365 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10016, USA {SArtemov,RKuznets}@gc.cuny.edu Abstract. The Hintikka-style modal logic approach to knowledge has a well-known defect of logical omniscience, i.e., an unrealistic feature that an agent knows all logical consequences of her assumptions. In this paper we suggest the following Logical Omniscience Test (LOT): an epistemic system E is not logically omniscient if for...»

«If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. • • r.' ••,., 110525U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of JUstice This document has been r d person or organization ori. ep~o uced exactly as received from the In this doc'Jment are tho glna~~~ It. Pornts of view or opinions stated represent the official se 0 e authors and do not necessarily Justice. position or policies of the National Institute of ;re;~~S;~yn to reproduce this...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.abstract.dislib.info - Abstracts, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.