99 So. 3d 797
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Daniels sued Parker and Associates, The Liberty Group, and Dalvin Parker in Lauderdale County in 2008 for money in an escrow account and for a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing related to a release from Parker contracts.
- Daniels was an independent contractor, not an employee, who signed broker and related agreements with Parker in 2005.
- Parker established an escrow account funded by Daniels’ advanced commissions to offset charge backs; the balance fluctuated, and Daniels stopped selling for Parker in 2007.
- Daniels sought a Penn Life-required release in Oct. 2008 to pursue employment; Parker refused, claiming Daniels owed substantial charge backs.
- Parker moved for summary judgment in 2011, arguing no evidence Parker owed Daniels any sums and no exclusive contract required a release; the trial court granted summary judgment for Parker.
- Daniels appeals, arguing genuine issues of material fact existed as to good faith/fair dealing and the release obligation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parker breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. | Daniels argues the exclusive nature of the contract required a release to allow new employment. | Parker contends there was no exclusive contract and the release was Penn Life’s requirement, not Parker’s; no contract breach. | No genuine issue; no breach as parties were not contractually obligated at the time or release not required by contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Bankers’ Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wells, 819 So.2d 1196 (Miss. 2001) (duty of good faith arises from contract; breach must be within contract)
- Lippincott v. Miss. Bureau Of Narcotics, 856 So.2d 465 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (good faith claim is tort-like when arising from breach of contract)
- Braidfoot v. William Carey College, 793 So.2d 642 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (breach-of-contract with implied duty analyzed by Missouri-anchored authorities)