Validsa, Inc. v. PDVSA Services, Inc.
424 F. App'x 862 (2011)
Rule of Law:
An agent for a disclosed principal is not individually liable for the principal's contract debts under Florida law without an express agreement, and determining the adequacy of contract assurances under the UCC typically presents a question of fact, precluding summary judgment when conflicting evidence exists.
Facts:
- Validsa, Inc., an international food commodities trader, entered into multiple contracts with Bariven S.A., a Venezuelan entity, for foodstuffs in late 2007 and early 2008.
- PDVSA Services, Inc. (PSI), a subsidiary of Bariven, acted as Bariven's purchasing agent, and the contracts consistently identified the purchasing party as 'BARIVEN, S.A. c/o PDVSA Services, Inc. Purchasing Agent.'
- For two large contracts in March 2008 (No. 632 for sugar and No. 757 for beef), Bariven paid Validsa approximately $44.580 million in advances.
- Validsa claimed that a Venezuelan businessman demanded a $2 million kickback, purportedly from Georges Kabboul (president of Bariven and PSI), to maintain the contracts.
- On April 15, 2008, Validsa inadvertently received an internal e-mail from Bariven's attorney, Rafael Rosales, instructing the cancellation of contract 757 and suspension of all payments to Validsa.
- Following this e-mail, Validsa repeatedly sought clarification and adequate assurances of performance from PSI and Bariven through letters and a meeting, to which PSI responded by stating the e-mail was an error and later proposing a draft agreement with new terms.
- Validsa, unsatisfied with the responses, did not respond to PSI's June 3, 2008, draft agreement and filed suit on June 12, 2008.
- At the time Validsa filed suit, Bariven owed Validsa $5,819,431 for goods delivered under earlier contracts and one installment of contract 757, while Validsa still possessed Bariven's $44.580 million in advance payments.
Procedural Posture:
- Validsa filed an original Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 12, 2008, and an Amended Complaint on July 3, 2008, alleging five breach of contract claims against PSI and Bariven.
- PSI and Bariven answered the Amended Complaint, denying anticipatory repudiation, and Bariven brought counterclaims against Validsa for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of implied covenants, and equitable accounting.
- The district court granted Validsa's motion for summary judgment on all five of its breach of contract claims, finding that PSI and Bariven breached contracts 326, 368, 405, and 757, and anticipatorily repudiated contracts 632 and 757.
- The district court granted Validsa's motion for summary judgment on all of Bariven’s counterclaims, dismissing them with prejudice, reasoning that Bariven itself had breached contracts 632 and 757 (for some claims) and that express contracts precluded others (for unjust enrichment and equitable accounting).
- The district court held a bench trial on damages, where it excluded certain expert testimony from Dr. Miguel Herce regarding future price changes and commissions, and also excluded Validsa's evidence of consequential damages for an alleged 20,369 extra tons of beef in contract 757.
- The district court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, awarding Validsa $40,764,093.30 in damages, but ruled that Validsa was not entitled to prejudgment interest due to holding approximately $44.580 million in advances from defendants, and determined that defendants were entitled to a setoff for these advances.
- PSI and Bariven appealed the district court's summary judgment rulings regarding PSI's individual liability and anticipatory repudiation, the exclusion of their expert's testimony, and the grant of summary judgment against Bariven's counterclaims.
- Validsa cross-appealed the district court's exclusion of consequential damages evidence, the entitlement to an offset/recoupment of cash advances, and the denial of prejudgment interest.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does Florida law permit an agent for a disclosed principal to be held individually liable on a contract absent an express agreement by the agent to be bound? 2. Is summary judgment appropriate on the issue of whether a party provided adequate assurances of performance under Florida Statute § 672.609 when conflicting evidence exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that assurances were given?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
1. No, Florida law does not permit an agent for a disclosed principal to be held individually liable on a contract absent an express agreement by the agent to be bound. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding of individual liability for PSI, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to show that PSI expressed an intent to be bound by the contracts. Under Florida law, an agent acting for a disclosed principal is not personally liable for the principal's debts 'absent an express agreement to the contrary.' The court found that Validsa's evidence—including PSI employee testimony, PSI's negotiation of contracts, a relationship-describing letter, and a draft agreement proposing new terms—did not demonstrate an express intent by PSI to be individually bound, but rather reflected activities typical of an agent on behalf of a disclosed principal. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Validsa and denying PSI's motion for summary judgment on PSI's individual liability. 2. No, summary judgment is not appropriate on the issue of whether a party provided adequate assurances of performance under Florida Statute § 672.609 when conflicting evidence exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that assurances were given. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings that Validsa had reasonable grounds for insecurity and made a written demand for adequate assurances. However, it reversed the district court's conclusion that, as a matter of law, PSI and Bariven failed to provide adequate assurances of performance. The court found that sufficient evidence existed in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that PSI and Bariven did offer adequate assurances. This evidence included various discussions at the April 29 meeting, PSI's May 16 letter informing Validsa to disregard the April 15 e-mail, the June 3 draft agreement (which a trier of fact could interpret as an attempt to provide assurances by proposing a U.S. company as the obligor and revising delivery schedules), and the significant fact that Validsa still held Bariven's approximately $44.580 million in advances, which had not been substantially reduced or requested for return. Because the adequacy of assurances is 'ordinarily a question of fact,' the existence of such conflicting evidence precluded summary judgment. The case was remanded for a trial to determine whether Bariven provided adequate assurances for contracts 632 and 757.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Florida agency law and the UCC's adequate assurances doctrine. It sets a high bar for holding an agent individually liable for a disclosed principal's contracts, emphasizing the need for an express agreement, thereby providing a robust defense for agents performing their duties. For anticipatory repudiation, the decision underscores that the determination of 'adequate assurances' is typically a fact-intensive inquiry, making summary judgment inappropriate when a reasonable jury could interpret the actions as sufficient reassurance. This cautions parties against prematurely terminating contracts based on a perceived lack of assurances, as doing so without clear evidence could expose them to breach of contract claims. The ruling reaffirms that ongoing financial arrangements, such as substantial advance payments, can weigh heavily in assessing the overall adequacy of assurances.
