Aiken Hospitality Group LLC v. HD Supply Facilities Maintenance Ltd
1:16-cv-03093
| D.S.C. | Mar 23, 2018Background
- Plaintiff (Aiken Hospitality Group) contracted with HD Supply to supply furniture for a hotel remodel and paid deposit amounts reflected on account records and order confirmations.
- HD Supply alleges it subcontracted production to N3A Manufacturing (Hotelure), which failed to deliver because Customs allegedly held the furniture.
- Plaintiff sued HD Supply in state court for breach of contract and fraud; HD Supply removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds.
- HD Supply filed a summary judgment motion (replacement motion) arguing no enforceable contract exists and invoking the statute of frauds.
- Plaintiff submitted bid forms, proof of payment (deposits), and order confirmations to show a contract; HD Supply contended only informal conversations and an invoice existed.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact about contract formation and therefore denied HD Supply’s motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding contract existed between Plaintiff and HD Supply | Bid forms, deposit payments, and order confirmations establish a contract | Only informal conversations and an invoice — no enforceable written contract; statute of frauds bars enforcement | Genuine dispute of material fact exists; court cannot decide contract formation on summary judgment (denies MSJ) |
| Applicability of the statute of frauds | Plaintiff contends written evidence and payments satisfy requirements | HD Supply contends agreement is not a formal written contract and is barred | Court declined to rule on statute of frauds given disputed existence of contract |
| Estoppel as a basis to enforce the agreement | Plaintiff invokes estoppel based on deposits and reliance | HD Supply challenges existence of any contract, which is prerequisite for estoppel | Court held estoppel could not be resolved because competent proof of an oral contract is disputed |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Plaintiff: factual record creates disputes for trial | HD Supply: no essential facts to support Plaintiff’s claim | Court applied summary judgment standard and concluded material factual disputes preclude judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (federal courts in diversity apply federal procedure and state substantive law)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party may show absence of evidence to shift summary judgment burden)
- Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121 (4th Cir.) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Hendricks v. Clemson Univ., 578 S.E.2d 711 (S.C.) (conflicting evidence on contract formation is for the jury)
- Baylor v. Bath, 1 S.E.2d 139 (S.C. 1938) (elements of a contract: intent, meeting of the minds, consideration)