Paul v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP
974 A.2d 140, 2009 Del. LEXIS 234, 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 331 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract clause requiring an action 'as of the date specified within' a certain timeframe is satisfied if the specification of the date occurs within that timeframe, even if the action itself occurs later. Furthermore, contract damages are limited to the non-breaching party's reasonable expectations at the time of formation and cannot result in a windfall.
Facts:
- Alan D. Paul, a former partner at Arthur Andersen LLP, joined Deloitte & Touche LLP as a partner in May 2002.
- Paul's Admission Agreement included a unique provision allowing a special six-person committee to involuntarily sever him without cause.
- This provision stated Paul could be severed 'as of the date specified within two years after the Effective Date' of May 7, 2002.
- On April 12, 2004, within the two-year window, the committee voted to sever Paul from the partnership and orally informed him of the decision.
- By letter dated April 22, 2004, also within the two-year window, Deloitte formally notified Paul his partnership would be terminated effective May 27, 2004.
- The effective termination date of May 27, 2004, was approximately three weeks after the two-year period expired.
- Paul received all entitled severance payments and the return of his capital, and he accepted a new partnership at another firm on May 11, 2004, before his severance from Deloitte was effective.
Procedural Posture:
- Alan D. Paul filed a lawsuit against Deloitte in the Delaware Superior Court, a court of first instance, alleging breach of contract.
- Paul moved for partial summary judgment, which the Superior Court granted, finding that Deloitte had breached the contract.
- Deloitte then moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages, which the Superior Court granted, finding Paul had suffered no damages.
- Paul, as appellant, appealed the Superior Court's ruling on damages to the Delaware Supreme Court.
- Deloitte, as cross-appellant, appealed the Superior Court's ruling that it had breached the contract.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a partnership agreement that allows for severance 'as of the date specified within two years' by a committee require the severance to be fully completed within that two-year period, or merely that the committee specify the effective date of severance within that period?
Opinions:
Majority - Ridgely, Justice
No. A partnership agreement that allows for severance 'as of the date specified within two years' only requires that the date of severance be specified by the committee within that period, not that the severance itself be completed within the two years. The court conducted a grammatical analysis of the disputed clause, concluding that the phrase 'within two years' is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb 'specified,' indicating when the specification must occur. It does not act as an adjective modifying the noun 'date.' Therefore, Deloitte complied with the contract by notifying Paul of his termination date before the two-year period expired, even though the effective date was later. Assuming for the sake of argument that a breach had occurred, Paul would not be entitled to damages. His reasonable expectation was not indefinite employment until retirement, but employment subject to the agreement's clauses allowing for termination without cause. The three-week delay in his effective termination date caused him no harm; he was compensated for that time and secured a new job before his employment ended, meaning any further damages would constitute a windfall.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes a formalistic, grammatical approach to contract interpretation, highlighting that the precise structure of a sentence can determine the parties' obligations. It reinforces the fundamental contract law principle that damages are compensatory and must be based on the parties' reasonable expectations, which are defined by the entirety of the agreement, including termination clauses. The case serves as a strong precedent against awarding windfall damages for technical or harmless breaches, particularly in an at-will or terminable-without-cause employment context. This limits the ability of plaintiffs to claim damages for long-term expectancies, like a full career's salary, when the contract explicitly allows for early termination.
