Digital Advertising Displays Inc v. Harbor Industries, Inc, 1:20-cv-02886

DAD and Harbor had a long-term business relationship (1998–2014) under which DAD earned a 5% commission on certain interactive entertainment displays Harbor fabricated. Harbor failed to perform the required accounting and never paid commissions.
The parties continued working together; Harbor fabricated IEDs for DAD starting in 2011 and issues arose with fabrication quality.
In November 2013, Harbor met with DAD and assured DAD an accounting would be performed; later Harbor’s president allegedly admitted negligence and the parties negotiated a settlement.
On July 7, 2014, Harbor president Tim Parker emailed DAD owner Jeff Storey confirming a settlement to compensate DAD with up to $100,000 in manufacturing goods/services; the overdue accounting was not mentioned in that email.
DAD sued (filed July 6, 2020) alleging two breach-of-contract theories: (1) Harbor breached the sales-commissions contract by failing to perform the accounting and pay commissions; and (2) Harbor breached the July 2014 settlement by failing to provide $100,000 in goods/services. Harbor moved for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DAD’s breach claim re: the sales-commissions contract is viable	Commissions contract existed; Harbor failed to do accounting and pay 5% commissions	Either no enforceable contract or claim is time-barred by six-year SOL	Claim accrued by ~Nov 2013; six-year SOL expired Nov 2019; DAD filed July 2020. Summary judgment granted for Harbor (commission claim time-barred).
Whether DAD’s breach claim re: the July 2014 settlement is viable	Parties made a July 2014 settlement (confirmed by Parker’s July 7 email) obligating Harbor to provide $100,000 in goods/services; Harbor breached	No partnership/contract; claim time-barred	Evidence (Storey affidavit and Parker email) creates a genuine dispute that a July 7, 2014 settlement existed and accrued July 2014; suit filed within six years. Summary judgment denied as to settlement claim.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard re: genuine issues for trial)
Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir.) (nonmovant must set forth specific admissible facts at summary judgment)
Jaramillo v. Adams Cnty. Sch. Dist. 14, 680 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir.) (moving party must provide significantly probative evidence; use affidavits/depositions/exhibits)
Murray v. Guideone Specialty Mut. Ins. Co., 194 P.3d 489 (Colo. App.) (reasonable-diligence accrual rule; no reward for denial/self‑induced ignorance)
Crosby v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 251 P.3d 1279 (Colo. App.) (accrual focuses on discovery of facts, not realization of legal claims)
Bones v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869 (10th Cir.) (conclusory statements without competent evidence are insufficient at summary judgment)