Bad Weather Not a Good Excuse for Failing to Satisfy Condition Precedent

Blizzard by Ede Bell 300x225 Bad Weather Not a Good Excuse for Failing to Satisfy Condition Precedent

Blizzard (Photo by Emily Bell)

Minnesotans know that the weather here can be terrible (see this past winter). Personally, as a child who vividly remembers the 1991 blizzard on Halloween, I am well aware that the weather in Minnesota can be treacherous and derail important plans. However, sometimes those important plans (ones that have greater impact than not collecting a pillowcase full of candy) need to be completed by a certain date, like when a contract clause says that “time is of the essence” or there is an express condition precedent.

So what happens when weather threatens a deal closing when performance is due? We know that a defendant could argue that the weather made it impossible to close and therefore performance was excused; but could a plaintiff argue that the defendant still had to perform under the contract, even though the contract included an express condition precedent, because performance was temporarily impossible?

This was one of the arguments enXco made an attempt to avoid summary judgment in a huge breach of contract suit against Northern States Power (“NSP”) over a failed wind energy generation project in North Dakota. enXco claimed that NSP’s failure to perform caused over $245 million in damages.

Continue reading

Living Springs Church Literally?

Flooded Church Adam Paris 300x199 Living Springs Church Literally?

Photo by Adam Paris

It is ironic that Living Springs Church in City of Spring Lake Park bought a building whose private water line was linked to the city’s water-distribution system, the valve from the city water to the private line shut off, but the church’s private water line uncapped in the church building.

You see where this is headed?  (Living Springs…)

Continue reading

More On Gender & Judging: Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Company

Update (May 23, 2015):  In the case described below, a stinging opinion, dissenting in part and concurring in part with the Court’s majority opinion, from soon-to-be-retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul A. Anderson:

The unfortunate consequence of the majority’s opinion may well be that offensive and repulsive sexual misconduct in the workplace, like Zapolski’s verbal and physical misconduct, will be much more difficult to curtail in Minnesota and that many victims of similar misconduct will be left without a remedy under the law…I view the majority’s conclusion, whether explicit or implicit, to be extraordinary—even incogitable.  Its conclusion is difficult to explain….The district court made a very serious error in judgment in its findings when it was confronted with behavior that constitutes classic sexually motivated misconduct in the workplace. The majority compounds this serious error in judgment by allowing the views that inform the error to be applied not only to conduct in Lake County, but to conduct in the entire State of Minnesota.   The majority has in essence used our standard of review as a shield, behind which to abdicate our responsibility to review the district court’s findings for error…[A]s my service as an appellate judge draws to a close, I am concerned that the opinion the majority renders today signifies a step backwards on what I once believed was a one-way path toward ending sexual harassment in the workplace.

Alas, social progress never seems to be a one-way path but rather more like an arduous climb up steep terrain in which we slide back a bit, advance a bunch, slide back a bunch, advance a bit and so on and on.  We can, at a minimum celebrate that reversal of the district court’s decision adverse to the plaintiffs was affirmed.

Continue reading

Farming Injury Soon To Trial: The Enigma of Ultimate Responsibility For Foreseeable Misuse

Grain Bins 300x201 Farming Injury Soon To Trial: The Enigma of Ultimate Responsibility For Foreseeable MisuseAdam McRunnel, like thousands of workers in farms across Minnesota and the Midwest  worked on a farm, and used a large conveyor belt to load the grain (soybeans, in his case) into grain storage bins.

He was using a Belt Conveyor Model 20100, manufactured by Batco Manufacturing when it started making a growling or squeaking sound that McRunnel realized meant the conveyor’s bearings needed lubrication.

The Batco conveyor belt was sold with sealed bearings.  Furthermore, the Batco conveyor belt came with emphatic warnings which pointed out that it was dangerous to do any kind of maintenance or repair while the machine was running.  But the Batco sealed bearings had been replaced by unsealed bearings when McRunnel was running the belt on January 18, 2010.  And McRunnel did not turn off the belt when he needed to grease the bearings as it was his understanding that greasing the bearings worked better when the machine was running.

Continue reading

Minnesota LGBT Lawyers: The Nightmare is Over. We are All & Always Inclusive Forever More!!! (Somewhere…over the rainbow…)

35W Rainbow Bridge 179x300 Minnesota LGBT Lawyers: The Nightmare is Over.  We are All & Always Inclusive Forever More!!! (Somewhere...over the rainbow...)

The Interstate 35W Bridge, Minneapolis, Bathed in Rainbow Light to Celebrate Marriage Equality in Minnesota (Photo By Ed Kohler)

With the passage of Minnesota’s historic marriage equality law, with the crisp Spring air sparkling with motes of not just a new season but a new era, Minnesota progressives, liberals, libertarians, and so many thousands of others who favor the freedom of Americans to love another person regardless of gender without shame or stigma, might be tempted to jump to the view that we are now (finally) in an era without bigotry, homophobia, or bias based on sexual orientation.

When the celebration and joy of progress subsides, though, we all realize that unique issues continue to face Minnesota LGBT litigators.  Learn about them from a distinguished panel at a CLE (1.5 elimination of bias credits) May 29, 2013, 3-5:30 p.m., at Blackwell Burke P.A., 431 S. 7th Street, Suite 2500, Minneapolis, MN 55415.

But what’s so unique about the challenges faced by LGBT litigators, in particular?  What about those faced by women? By the disabled? By other minority groups?

Continue reading