Disputed contract terms revive construction project lawsuit

Listen to this article

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a summary judgment ruling and sent a contract dispute back for further proceedings after concluding that unresolved factual questions prevented dismissal of the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.

The action stems from a construction project in South Carolina involving a manufacturing company and two related technology companies. The plaintiff alleged that it entered into an oral agreement under which it would serve as the exclusive supplier of racking systems for the project. In exchange, the plaintiff claimed it provided design drawings that were used in a request for quotation process, with the expectation of earning revenue tied to that role.

After the case was removed from state court to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had received the full benefit of its bargain because it was, in fact, hired to supply racking structures for the project.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that this analysis overlooked key disputes about whether a binding contract existed and, if so, what its terms required. According to the plaintiff, the agreement went beyond merely supplying equipment and included monetary compensation for the design drawings. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants breached the agreement by encouraging a third-party contractor to remove the plaintiff from the project and by approving payments that excluded compensation to the plaintiff.

The defendants countered that no enforceable contract promised payment for the design work and that the plaintiff received exactly what it bargained for.

The 4th Circuit sided with the plaintiff at this stage, holding that a reasonable jury could find both that the parties entered into a contract and that its terms included compensation for the design drawings. Because the existence and scope of the alleged agreement were genuinely disputed, the appellate court concluded that the district court could not determine whether a breach occurred without first resolving those factual questions.

With those disputes unresolved, the appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The 13 page opinion is East Coast Storage Equipment Co. Inc. v. ZF Transmissions Gray Court LLC, Lawyers Weekly No. 003-035-26.