X.L.O. Concrete Corp. v. Rivergate Corp.
634 N.E.2d 158 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract that is legal on its face but is connected to an underlying antitrust conspiracy is not automatically unenforceable. Such a contract will only be voided if a court's judgment would enforce the precise conduct made illegal by the antitrust laws.
Facts:
- X.L.O. Concrete Corp. was a member of the 'Club,' a cartel of concrete companies and a union controlled by organized crime, which rigged bids and fixed prices on construction jobs in New York City worth over $2 million.
- The 'Club' allocated a specific construction project to X.L.O.
- X.L.O. and the general contractor, Rivergate Corporation, negotiated and entered into a written contract for X.L.O. to perform concrete work for approximately $16.3 million.
- Rivergate negotiated the contract with full knowledge of the 'Club' and its illegal operations.
- X.L.O. fully completed all of its work as specified in the contract.
- Rivergate refused to pay the outstanding balance of $844,125.07 to X.L.O.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff X.L.O. Concrete Corp. sued defendant Rivergate Corporation in the New York Supreme Court (trial court) for breach of contract.
- Rivergate asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims, alleging the contract was void as a violation of state and federal antitrust laws.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Supreme Court granted Rivergate's motion, dismissing X.L.O.'s complaint.
- X.L.O. appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division modified the trial court's order, reinstating X.L.O.'s complaint and allowing the case to proceed.
- The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court).
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 party's defense of antitrust illegality under the Donnelly Act automatically render a fully performed construction contract unenforceable as a matter of law, where the contract arose from a bid-rigging scheme?
Opinions:
Majority - Ciparick, J.
No. A contract that is legal on its face is not rendered per se unenforceable simply because it is related to an antitrust conspiracy. Courts disfavor the interposition of antitrust defenses in contract actions because of the risk of unjustly enriching a party that has received the benefits of performance. Following the federal precedent of Kelly v. Kosuga, an antitrust defense will only succeed where the court's judgment would enforce the 'precise conduct made unlawful by the Act.' Because the contract here was for the legal performance of construction work, its enforcement is not a per se violation. Whether the contract is so integrally related to the illegal scheme as to be unenforceable is a question of fact that requires a trial, where the court can weigh factors such as the degree to which the price was inflated by anticompetitive conduct and the relative culpability of the parties.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies New York's adoption of the federal standard for antitrust illegality defenses in contract actions, creating a high bar for voiding a contract. It prevents parties who may have knowingly benefited from an anticompetitive scheme from using that scheme as a shield to avoid their own payment obligations, thereby preventing unjust enrichment. The ruling shifts the focus from a per se rule of unenforceability to a fact-intensive inquiry into the contract's specific role in the illegal conduct and the equities between the parties. This ensures that antitrust laws are used as a 'shield' against illegal conduct, not as a 'sword' to escape legitimate debts after performance has been rendered.
Unlock the full brief for X.L.O. Concrete Corp. v. Rivergate Corp.