Packgen v. BP Exploration & Production, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Packgen v. BP Exploration & Production, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/27

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2035

PACKGEN,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

BP EXPLORATI ON & PRODUCTI ON, I NC. , andBP AMERI CA PRODUCTI ON COMPANY,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. J ohn A. Woodcock, J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge,Sout er , * Associ at e J ust i ce,and St ahl , Ci r cui t J udge.

Mi chael R. Bosse, wi t h whom Travi s M. Br ennan, Geor ge F.Bur ns, and Ber nst ei n Shur wer e on br i ef , f or Appel l ant .

Chr i st i na Br i esacher , wi t h whom Davi d J . Vol ki n, Amy Cashor eMar i ani , Ki r kl and & El l i s LLP, and Fi t zhugh & Mar i ani LLP wer e onbr i ef , f or Appel l ees.

J une 11, 2014

* Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/27

STAHL, Circuit Judge. I n t he af t ermath of t he Deepwater

Hor i zon oi l spi l l of 2010, Appel l ant Packgen, a manuf act ur er of

packagi ng pr oduct s, sought t o sel l oi l cont ai nment boom t o

Appel l ees BP Expl or at i on & Product i on, I nc. and BP Amer i ca

Pr oduct i on Company ( col l ect i vel y, "BP") . Despi t e mont hs of

negot i at i ons, BP ul t i mat el y deci ded not t o pur chase any boomf r om

Packgen. Packgen subsequent l y f i l ed a f i ve- count compl ai nt i n t he

f eder al di st r i ct cour t i n Mai ne, i nvoki ng di ver si t y j ur i sdi cti on

and al l egi ng var i ous st at e- l aw t or t cl ai ms. The di st r i ct cour t

gr ant ed summary j udgment i n f avor of BP. For t he f ol l owi ng

r easons, we af f i r m.

I. BACKGROUND

The di st r i ct cour t ' s summar y j udgment or der set s f or t h

t he f act s of t hi s case i n met i cul ous det ai l . Packgen v. BP

Expl or at i on & Pr od. , I nc. , 957 F. Supp. 2d 58, 6382 ( D. Me. 2013) .

We r ei t er at e t hem her e as necessary t o pr ovi de cont ext f or t he

i ssues on appeal , but we note t hat many of t he f act s ar e based

sol el y on Packgen' s own t est i mony. Whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t

accept ed t hese f act s as t r ue f or t he pur poses of t he summary

j udgment mot i on, see Tol an v. Cot t on, 134 S. Ct . 1861, 1863 ( 2014)

( per cur i am) ( " [ O] n a mot i on f or summary j udgment , t he evi dence of

t he nonmovant i s t o be bel i eved, and al l j ust i f i abl e i nf er ences ar e

t o be dr awn i n hi s f avor . " ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

al t er nat i on omi t t ed) , i n many i nst ances BP di sput ed Packgen' s

-2-


3/27

ver si on of event s. The di st r i ct cour t ' s or der t hor oughl y document s

t he poi nt s of di sput e, and cl ar i f i es t hat i t accept ed Packgen' s

ver si on of t he f act s i n ever y i nst ance. Packgen, 957 F. Supp. 2d

at 6483 nn. 181.

On Apr i l 20, 2010, an oi l dr i l l i ng r i g owned by BP named

Deepwat er Hor i zon caught f i r e and sank of f t he Gul f Coast of

Loui si ana, causi ng a massi ve oi l spi l l . Par t of BP' s r esponse

i nvol ved t he depl oyment of oi l cont ai nment boom. I t had an

i mmedi at e need f or mi l l i ons of f eet of boom, but i t encount er ed

pr obl ems wi t h avai l abi l i t y, pr oduct i on, and i nt er connect i vi t y.

Packgen i s a smal l busi ness i n Mai ne that desi gns and

manuf actur es composi t e packagi ng mater i al s and cont ai ners used i n

t he chemi cal , oi l , and f ood- pr ocessi ng i ndust r i es. Pr i or t o t he

Deepwater Hor i zon spi l l , Packgen had never manuf actur ed oi l

cont ai nment boom. Never t hel ess, i t saw an oppor t uni t y t o make boom

par t of i t s busi ness i n t he wake of t he spi l l , and i t began

const r uct i ng boom manuf act ur i ng equi pment no l at er t han Apr i l 28,

2010, pr i or t o any di scussi ons wi t h BP.

By ear l y May 2010, Dan For t e, a market i ng consul t ant f or

Packgen, spoke t o Mar i o Ar aya, who was procur i ng boomf or BP. Ar aya

made an oral commi t ment t o For t e t o pur chase al l of Packgen' s

pr esent and f ut ur e pr oduct i on of boom f or $21. 75 per squar e f oot ,

subj ect t o a vi si t by BP per sonnel t o i nspect Packgen' s f aci l i t y

and boom capaci t y. On May 11, 2010, Max Lyoen, a Suppl i er Qual i t y

-3-


4/27

Cont r ol Speci al i st f or BP, i nspect ed Packgen' s f aci l i t y and met

wi t h sever al Packgen r epr esent at i ves, i ncl udi ng For t e, J ohn

Lapoi nt , and Don Rober t s. Lyoen was i mpr essed by Packgen' s

pr oduct i on capaci t y, and he st at ed t hat t he end connect or s used by

Packgen woul d meet BP' s r equi r ement s.

At t hat t i me, t he Amer i can Soci et y f or Test i ng and

Mat er i al s ( ASTM) st andar ds wer e the onl y speci f i cat i ons t hat BP had

f or boom. Lyoen t ol d Packgen' s r epr esent at i ves that BP woul d

pur chase Packgen' s f ul l pr oduct i on capaci t y once an i ndependent

t hi r d par t y t est ed Packgen' s boom f or compl i ance wi t h t he ASTM

st andar ds. Af t er t hat meet i ng, Lapoi nt wr ot e an emai l t o a

col l eague st at i ng t hat " [ we] shoul d have a response by t omor r ow

mor ni ng on how much [ BP] wi l l commi t . . . . [ W] e ar e j ust wai t i ng

on BP t o make t hei r deci si on. . . . "

On May 12, 2010, For t e and Ar aya spoke by phone, and

Ar aya st at ed "I ' m pl aci ng an or der . We' l l t ake i t al l . " The next

day, Ar aya negot i ated t he pr i ce down t o $18. 75 per square f oot and

t ol d For t e t hat BP woul d not pay up f r ont . I n r esponse, For t e sent

Ar aya an emai l t hanki ng hi m f or "di scussi ng t he det ai l s of a

possi bl e t r ansact i on. " He st at ed t hat t he compani es "may be abl e

t o addr ess t he i ssues concerni ng payment t erms and pr i ci ng. What

r emai ns i s t he i ssue concer ni ng t he accept abi l i t y [ of ] our desi gn

and t he r equi r ement s you have st at ed. . . . Al l t hat we r equi r e i s

-4-


5/27

a l et t er f r om Max Lyoen st at i ng t hat t he desi gn meet s your

r equi r ement s. "

On May 13, 2010, Packgen i nf ormed BP t hat i t was " movi ng

f or war d" wi t h t he sal e and del i ver y. At t hat poi nt , i t began

gear i ng up i t s oper at i ons t o pr oduce 40, 000 l i near f eet of boomper

day. On May 18, 2010, For t e sent an emai l t o Mat t Pavl as, BP' s

boom sour ci ng l ead, st at i ng t hat Packgen was " at t empt i ng sal es t o

BP and Oi l Cl eanup compani es. " He i nf ormed Pavl as t hat Lyoen had

vi si t ed Packgen' s f aci l i t i es and wr i t t en a r epor t f or BP; he asked

Pavl as t o "pr ovi de i ndi cat i ons i f t hi s r epor t meet s BP

r equi r ement s. " Pavl as pr ovi ded Packgen wi t h a copy of Lyoen' s

r epor t , whi ch descr i bed Packgen' s product as " exper i ment al . "

Packgen hi r ed Dr . I an Dur ham t o conduct t hi r d- par t y

t est i ng. On May 20, 2010, Dr . Dur hamr eport ed t hat Packgen' s boom

met ASTM st andar ds. Packgen provi ded Lyoen and t wo BP procur ement

managers wi t h t he t est r esul t s. On May 22, 2010, Don Robert s of

Packgen sent Pavl as an emai l expr essi ng hi s " hope [ t hat ] t he

i nf or mat i on f r om t he t hi r d par t y r evi ew hel ps i n t he deci si on

maki ng pr ocess . " Pavl as cont acted Robert s by phone and st ated t hat

BP i nt ended t o pur chase Packgen' s ent i r e st ock of boom. Robert s

f ol l owed up i n an emai l on May 24, 2010, aski ng Pavl as f or a

conf er ence cal l "t o di scuss [ our ] possi bl e wor ki ng r el at i onshi p. "

Pavl as r esponded t hat "f i r st I woul d l i ke t o r ecei ve t he

-5-


6/27

i nf or mat i on r equest ed yest er day such as [ quant i t y] i n i nvent or y,

et c. "

On May 26, 2010, Deenan Ar cot of BP emai l ed Rober t s

r equest i ng t he speci f i cat i ons f or Packgen' s boom, whi ch he sai d BP

woul d have t o appr ove pr i or t o pl aci ng an or der . Af t er r ecei vi ng

t he speci f i cat i ons, Ar cot expr essed r eser vat i ons about t he

const r uct i on of t he boomi n an emai l t o Rober t s, obser vi ng t hat i t

was "[ v] er y di f f er ent . . . f r om ot her s bei ng used. " I n a f ol l ow-

up emai l , Ar cot wr ot e " I want t o check the possi bi l i t y t hat you can

modi f y t hese booms t o our s t andard r equi r ement . " Robert s l ater

t est i f i ed t hat t hi s was t he f i r st t i me BP ever expr essed havi ng any

st andar d requi r ement f or boom ot her t han t he ASTM st andar ds.

On May 26, 2010, BP noted pot ent i al pr obl ems wi t h t he

connect or pl ates and end connect ors on Packgen' s boomand i nf ormed

Packgen t hat i t coul d not use t he pr oduct at t hat t i me. Lapoi nt

and Rober t s spoke t o BP' s Char l es Bi gi about t he connect or i ssue,

and Bi gi pr omi sed that BP woul d appr ove and buy Packgen' s boom i f

Packgen obt ai ned new uni ver sal connectors. On May 29, Bi gi sent

t wo col l eagues at BP an emai l summar i zi ng hi s di scussi ons wi t h

Packgen and i ncl udi ng the st atement " I do not underst and why we

keep pl aci ng or der s wi t h suppl i er s l i ke t hi s[ . ] "

I n l at e May or ear l y J une, Packgen secur ed uni ver sal

sl i de connect or s. On J une 11, 2010, BP sent Lui s Suar ez, a

Suppl i er Qual i t y Cont r ol Speci al i st , t o conduct an assessment of

-6-


7/27

Packgen' s manuf act ur i ng pr ocess. Fol l owi ng hi s vi si t , Suar ez t ol d

Lapoi nt and Rober t s t hat BP woul d pur chase Packgen' s f ul l capaci t y.

On J une 15, 2010, Suarez r equest ed t hat Packgen send 500- 600 f eet

of boomf or eval uat i on by BP. He i ssued a r epor t t he f ol l owi ng day

i n whi ch he pr oposed t hr ee new modi f i cat i ons t hat he had not

pr evi ousl y di scussed wi t h Packgen.

Meanwhi l e, BP' s demand f or boomcont i nued t o i ncr ease.

I t began t o i nst i t ut e a new appr oval pr ocess f or boommanuf act ur er s

and hi r ed t echni cal aut hor i t i es on boom. As of J une 18, 2010, BP

had compl et ed a wr i t t en speci f i cat i on f or 18" boom. Ther eaf t er , i t

began request i ng t hat boommanuf act ur er s compl et e a devi at i on f or m

i f t hei r boom di f f er ed f r om t he speci f i cat i on. Packgen' s boom

desi gn was so di f f er ent f r omBP' s speci f i cat i on t hat Packgen agr eed

t o submi t a dr awi ng of i t s boom i nst ead of t he devi at i on f or m.

Bet ween J une 16 t o J une 25, 2010, BP request ed numer ous changes

f r om Packgen, none of whi ch wer e requi r ed by t he ASTM st andar ds.

Packgen worked at BP' s di r ect i on t o make t he necessar y changes.

On J une 21, 2010, Suar ez r ei t er at ed hi s r equest f or a

sampl e of boom t o conduct f i el d t est s. BP conduct ed i t s f i r st

f i el d t est on J une 30, 2010, at a BP si t e near Mobi l e, Al abama.

Packgen' s boom di d not per f or m wel l . At t hat t i me, BP r ai sed t wo

new concer ns about Packgen' s boomf i r st , i t was const r uct ed wi t h

mat er i al t hat f i l l ed wi t h wat er as i t was t owed, and second, i t

-7-


8/27

f ai l ed t o meet cer t ai n decont ami nat i on st andar ds. Packgen wor ked

t o addr ess t he t wo new concerns.

Whi l e t hey were i n Al abama, Bi gi i nf ormed Rober t s t hat BP

needed 24" boom and suggest ed t hat Packgen coul d be BP' s suppl i er

f or t hat pr oduct i f i t coul d adapt i t s manuf act ur i ng pr ocess. On

J ul y 7, 2010, Suar ez f or war ded t he l at est speci f i cat i on f or 24"

boom t o Packgen. BP' s J ohn McFadden asked Packgen t o "work on

get t i ng t he mater i al t o make 24" boom. " At BP' s di r ect i on, Packgen

compl et ed a f i el d t est of t he new boom on J ul y 12, 2010, and

f or war ded a vi deo t ape of t he test t o BP.

BP capped t he Deepwater Hor i zon wel l on J ul y 15, 2010,

and shor t l y t her eaf t er began wi ndi ng down i t s boom pur chases.

Never t hel ess, i t conduct ed anot her f i el d t est of Packgen' s boomon

J ul y 21, 2010. BP' s summar y of t he r esul t s show t hat t he boom

per f ormed wel l . Fol l owi ng t he f i el d t est , McFadden gave ver bal

appr oval t o Packgen' s boom. Suarez i nf ormed Packgen t hat i t was

one of j ust t hr ee appr oved suppl i er s f or 24" boomand t hat BP woul d

need boom t o cont i nue cl eanup ef f or t s t hr ough t he end of 2010.

At no poi nt di d BP t el l Packgen t o st op pr oduci ng boom,

and i t never pai d f or any of t he boom Packgen pr oduced. On August

18, 2010, Robert s emai l ed BP expr essi ng t he underst andi ng t hat

" t her e i s not a need r i ght now f or [ b] oom" but seeki ng a pl ace on

BP' s appr oved vendor l i st . BP r esponded t hat Packgen had been

added t o the appr oved vendor l i st f or boom.

-8-


9/27

Packgen was l ef t wi t h 60, 000 f eet of compl et ed boom i n

i t s warehouse, whi ch i t sol d i n Sept ember 2010 t o t he onl y

pur chaser i t coul d f i nd f or t wo dol l ar s a squar e f oot . Al t hough

Packgen was unabl e t o sel l or r et ur n many of t he mat er i al s t hat i t

pur chased t o manuf act ure boom, i t managed t o sel l some at a l oss

and i ncor por at e some i nt o i t s ot her pr oduct s. Si nce t he r esol ut i on

of t he Gul f Coast spi l l , Packgen has not manuf act ur ed boom.

II. ANALYSIS

"We revi ew order s f or summary j udgment de novo, assessi ng

t he recor d i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he nonmovant and

r esol vi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n t hat par t y' s f avor . "

Bar cl ays Bank PLC v. Poynt er , 710 F. 3d 16, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( i nt ernal quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . Summary j udgment i s

appr opr i ate when " t here i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mater i al

f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. "

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) .

A. Misrepresentation (Counts I & II)

I n Count s I and I I , Packgen al l eged negl i gent and

i nt ent i onal mi sr epr esent at i on. Whi l e negl i gent and i nt ent i onal

mi sr epr esent at i on ar e di st i nct cl ai ms, bot h r equi r e t he pl ai nt i f f

t o show t hat t he def endant made a " f al se repr esent at i on of pr esent

f act . " Kear ney v. J . P. Ki ng Auct i on Co. , 265 F. 3d 27, 33 n. 8 ( 1st

Ci r . 2001) ; see al so Gui ggey v. Bombardi er , 615 A. 2d 1169, 1173

-9-


10/27

( Me. 1992) ( "A common, essent i al el ement of bot h cl ai ms i s t he

r equi r ement of a f al se repr esent at i on. ") .

As t he di st r i ct cour t observed, Packgen bases t hese t wo

cl ai ms on t hr ee gr oups or cat egor i es of mi sr epr esent at i ons: " ( 1)

what , at a par t i cul ar poi nt i n t i me i n t he oi l spi l l saga, BP

r equi r ed f or i t s speci f i cat i on, ( 2) i t s i nt ent i on t o pur chase

Packgen' s boom, and (3) how much boom i t needed at any par t i cul ar

t i me. " Packgen, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 86. The di st r i ct cour t

concl uded t hat bot h cl ai ms f ai l as a mat t er of l aw because t her e i s

no evi dence i n t he recor d t hat any of t he al l eged

mi sr epr esent at i ons were f al se at t he t i me they were made. 1 I d. at

8688. We agr ee. See J or dan- Mi l t on Mach. , I nc. v. F/ V Ter esa

Mar i e, I I , 978 F. 2d 32, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( af f i r mi ng a di r ected

ver di ct i n f avor of t he def endant on a negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on

cl ai m wher e "t her e was a t ot al l ack of evi dence t o pr ove t hat [ t he

def endant ' s] st at ement s wer e f al se at t he t i me t hey wer e made") .

Packgen ar gues on appeal t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

i mpr oper l y wei ghed t he evi dence i n BP' s f avor whi l e over l ooki ng

r easonabl e i nf er ences t hat t he j ur y coul d have dr awn i n Packgen' s

1 The di st r i ct cour t al so di scussed t he possi bl e appl i cat i on

of t he so- cal l ed Shi ne except i on, whi ch al l ows st at ement s ofopi ni on t o be act i onabl e as mi sr epr esent at i ons under cer t ai nci r cumst ances. Packgen, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 8586; Shi ne v. Dodge,157 A. 318, 319 ( Me. 1931) . Because we concl ude, al ong wi t h t hedi st r i ct cour t , t hat t he evi dence does not show t he al l egedmi sr epr esent at i ons t o be f al se, we do not need t o del ve i nt o theShi ne except i on.

-10-


11/27

f avor . None of t he possi bl e i nf er ences r ai sed by Packgen

cont r over t t he f undament al def i ci ency i dent i f i ed by the di st r i ct

cour t , however , because Packgen st i l l does not i dent i f y speci f i c

evi dence i n t he r ecor d showi ng t hat any of BP' s st atement s were

f al se at t he t i me t hey were made. A par t y cannot sur vi ve summary

j udgment si mpl y by ar t i cul at i ng concl usi ons t he j ury mi ght

i magi nabl y r each; i t must poi nt t o evi dence t hat woul d suppor t

t hose concl usi ons. See Mi ss. Pub. Emps. ' Ret . Sys. v. Bos.

Sci ent i f i c Cor p. , 649 F. 3d 5, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "Wi t h r espect t o

each i ssue on whi ch [ a] pl ai nt i f f has t he bur den of pr oof at t r i al ,

i t must pr esent def i ni t e, compet ent evi dence t o r ebut t he

mot i on . . . . ") ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

For exampl e, Packgen posi t s t hat "a j ur y coul d r easonabl y

concl ude t hat BP kept maki ng changes t o i t s speci f i cat i on dur i ng

t he spi l l so t hat manuf act ur er s woul d cont i nue to wor k f or BP,

accedi ng t o di f f er ent r equest s made by BP at di f f er ent t i mes,

wi t hout BP act ual l y havi ng t o pay f or t he boom. " [ Appel l ant Br . at

4243. ] I f a j ur y r eached t hat concl usi on, i t woul d be pur e

specul at i on. The evi dence shows t hat BP' s boom speci f i cat i ons

changed r epeat edl y dur i ng i t s cour se of deal i ng wi t h Packgen, but

not hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat t hese changes r ef l ect t he bad

i nt ent i ons t hat Packgen descr i bes. Si mi l ar l y, not hi ng i n t he

r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat BP expr essed an i nt ent i on t o pur chase boom

-11-


12/27

when i t act ual l y had no such i nt ent i on, or t hat i t ever cl ai med t o

need more boom t han i t r eal l y needed.

Thus, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not i mpermi ssi bl y wei gh

evi dence or i gnor e r easonabl e i nf er ences. Rat her , i t poi nt ed out

t he absence of evi dence suppor t i ng Packgen' s posi t i on. I t s

r easoni ng and concl usi ons wer e cor r ect , and we af f i r m i t s j udgment

as t o Count s I and I I .

B. Breach of Contract (Count III)

Under t he Mai ne St at ut e of Frauds, a cont r act f or t he

sal e of goods f or f i ve hundr ed dol l ar s or mor e i s unenf or ceabl e

"unl ess t her e i s some wr i t i ng suf f i ci ent t o i ndi cat e t hat a

cont r act f or sal e has been made between t he par t i es and si gned by

t he par t y agai nst whom enf or cement i s sought or by hi s aut hor i zed

agent . " Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 11, 2- 201( 1) . Packgen does not

cl ai m t hat t her e i s any wr i t t en agr eement i n t hi s case t hat woul d

sat i sf y t he St at ut e of Fr auds. I nst ead, i t ar gues f or t he

appl i cat i on of t wo st at ut or y except i ons: t he "speci al l y

manuf act ur ed goods" except i on and t he "j udi ci al admi ssi on"

except i on. The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat nei t her appl i es, and we

agr ee.

1. Specially Manufactured Goods Exception

The Mai ne st at ute cr eates an except i on t o t he r equi r ement

of a wr i t t en agr eement " [ i ] f t he goods ar e t o be speci al l y

manuf act ur ed f or t he buyer and ar e not sui t abl e f or sal e t o ot her s

-12-


13/27

i n t he or di nar y cour se of t he sel l er ' s busi ness. " 2- 201( 3) ( a) .

The appl i cabi l i t y of t he except i on depends on whet her t he goods

t hemsel ves have uni que qual i t i es t hat r ender t hem unf i t f or sal e

wi t hout maj or al t er at i ons t o anyone ot her t han t he i nt ended buyer .

The t er m ' speci al l y manuf act ured' . . . r ef er s t o t henat ur e of t he par t i cul ar goods i n quest i on and not t owhet her t he goods wer e made i n an unusual , as opposed t ot he regul ar , busi ness oper at i on or manuf act ur i ng pr ocessof t he sel l er . . . . The cruci al i nqui r y i s whet her t hemanuf act ur er coul d sel l t he goods i n t he or di nar y cour seof hi s busi ness t o someone ot her t han t he or i gi nal buyer .I f wi t h sl i ght al t er at i ons t he goods coul d be so sol d,t hen t hey ar e not speci al l y manuf act ur ed; i f , however ,essent i al changes ar e necessary t o r ender t he goodsmar ket abl e by t he sel l er t o ot her s, t hen t he except i ondoes appl y.

9 Wi l l i st on on Cont r act s 26. 19 ( 4t h ed. ) ( quot i ng I mpossi bl e

El ec. Techni ques, I nc. v. Wackenhut Pr ot ect i ve Sys. , I nc. , 669 F. 2d

1026, 1037 ( For mer 5t h Ci r . 1982) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) .

Her e, as t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved, af t er BP decl i ned

t o buy i t s boom, Packgen was abl e to sel l i t t o anot her buyer

wi t hout any al t er at i ons. I t i s t r ue t he Packgen r ecei ved a gr eat l y

r educed pr i ce t han what BP appear ed pr epared t o pay, but t he

undi sput ed f act s show t hat t he pr i ce reduct i on was caused by an

over abundance of boom i n the mar ket f ol l owi ng the cappi ng of t he

l eak. Under t hese ci r cumst ances, t he except i on does not appl y.

Packgen' s argument s on appeal do not per suade us

ot her wi se. Rat her t han poi nt i ng t o any uni que qual i t i es of i t s

pr oduct , Packgen ar gues t hat t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng i t s

-13-


14/27

pr oduct i on and sal e of boomi ndi cat e t hat i t s pr oduct was speci al l y

manuf act ur ed f or BP. I t poi nt s t o t he f act t hat BP was pur chasi ng

ni net y per cent of domest i c boompr oduct i on i n t he af t er mat h of t he

spi l l , and t hat Packgen onl y deci ded t o ent er t he boom mar ket i n

r esponse t o t he di sast er . These ar gument s ar e besi de t he poi nt . I t

i s t he nat ur e of t he goods t hemsel ves t hat mat t er s, not t he

ci r cumst ances under whi ch Packgen t r i ed t o do busi ness wi t h BP.

Packgen al so ar gues t hat i t di d not sel l boom i n i t s

or di nar y cour se of busi ness, because i t never sol d boombef or e t he

spi l l and i t has not sol d boom si nce. Thi s ar gument i gnor es the

f act t hat Packgen i ndependent l y ent er ed the mar ket f or boom and

at t empt ed t o sel l i t s pr oduct t o BP; i t di d not make t hat deci si on

at BP' s request . As BP accur at el y poi nt s out , "under Packgen' s

anal ysi s, any company [ t hat ] at t empt s t o br eak i nt o any busi ness

coul d cl ai m a cont r act f or speci al l y manuf act ur ed goods when i t s

at t empt f ai l s and i t l i qui dat es i t s i nvent or y. " [ Appel l ee' s Br .

18] Thi s except i on does not exi st as a saf et y net f or f ai l ed

busi ness vent ur es. I nst ead, i t pr ot ect s sel l er s who mi ght be st uck

wi t h "goods t hat ar e di f f i cul t or i mpossi bl e t o sel l t o ot her s"

because of t hei r uni que nat ur e. 9 Wi l l i st on on Cont r act s 26. 19.

That i s not Packgen' s posi t i on i n t hi s case. Thus, t he di st r i ct

cour t cor r ect l y decl i ned t o appl y t he "speci al l y made goods"

except i on.

-14-


15/27

2. Judicial Admission Exception

The Stat ute al so cr eat es an except i on " [ i ] f t he par t y

agai nst whom enf or cement i s sought admi t s i n hi s pl eadi ng,

t est i mony or ot her wi se i n cour t t hat a cont r act f or sal e was made. "

2- 201( 3) ( b) . The admi ss i on "need not expr essl y acknowl edge t he

exi st ence of a cont r act , " but i t must "descr i be conduct or

ci r cumst ances f r omwhi ch t he t r i er of f act can i nf er a cont r act . "

Gr uen I ndus. , I nc. v. Bi l l er , 608 F. 2d 274, 278 ( 7t h Ci r . 1979) .

Packgen of f er s t wo bases f or t he appl i cat i on of t hi s except i on.

Fi r st , Packgen poi nt s t o deposi t i on t est i mony i n whi ch Char l es Bi gi

aut hent i cated an emai l t hat he sent t o col l eagues at BP, supposedl y

r ef er r i ng t o an or der BP pl aced wi t h Packgen. Second, i t poi nt s

out t hat BP f ai l ed t o pr ovi de r ecor d ci t at i ons when i t deni ed

cer t ai n st at ement s i n Packgen' s s t at ement of mat er i al f act s.

Packgen argues t hat under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Procedur e 56, t he

f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de r ecor d ci t at i ons const i t ut es admi ssi ons t hat

sat i sf y t he except i on.

a. Char l es Bi gi ' s Emai l

I n t he emai l t hat Packgen put s f or t h as an admi ss i on,

Char l es Bi gi wr ot e t o hi s col l eague, " I do not under st and why we

keep pl aci ng or der s wi t h suppl i er s l i ke t hi s[ . ] " The di st r i ct

cour t concl uded t hat "vi ewi ng t he st at ement i n t he cont ext of t he

r est of t he undi sput ed evi dence, and vi ewi ng t he ent i r e r ecor d i n

t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Packgen, Mr . Bi gi ' s emai l does not

-15-


16/27

suppor t " an i nf er ence that a cont r act exi st ed bet ween BP and

Packgen. Packgen, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 93. Packgen argues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t "i nvaded t he j ur y' s pr ovi nce by i mper mi ssi bl y

wei gh[ i ng] conf l i ct i ng evi dence" when i t r evi ewed t he r ecor d t o

assess t he si gni f i cance of Bi gi ' s emai l . [ Appel l ant ' s Br . 25] We

di sagr ee. I n or der t o accur at el y det er mi ne whet her a j ur y mi ght

i nf er a cont r act f r omBi gi ' s emai l , t he di st r i ct cour t had t o l ook

at t he st atement i n t he cont ext of t he ongoi ng communi cat i ons

bet ween BP and Packgen.

I n Gr uen, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t engaged i n a si mi l ar

anal ysi s. I n t hat case, t he pl ai nt i f f ar gued t hat an agent of t he

def endant made st at ement s i n a deposi t i on descr i bi ng conduct f r om

whi ch a j ur y coul d i nf er t he exi st ence of a cont r act . 608 F. 2d at

27880. The cour t concl uded t hat a " r eadi ng of t he t r anscr i pt of

t hese st atement s, however , shows nothi ng more t han ongoi ng

negot i at i ons, because t he conduct was accompani ed by st atement s

maki ng i t cl ear t hat t her e was no agr eement unt i l t he negot i at i ons

wer e compl et e. " I d. at 27980 ( f oot not e omi t t ed) .

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t r evi ewed the communi cat i ons

between Packgen and BP that l ed up t o Bi gi ' s emai l and concl uded

t hat t he evi dence di d not suppor t an i nf er ence t hat a bi ndi ng

agr eement exi st ed at t hat t i me. We do not need t o wal k t hr ough t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s r evi ew of t he r ecor d st ep by step, but we

hi ghl i ght one key poi nt . On May 24, 2010, j ust a f ew days bef or e

-16-


17/27

Bi gi ' s emai l , Packgen r equest ed a conf er ence cal l wi t h BP t o

"di scuss [ our ] possi bl e wor ki ng r el at i onshi p. " That st at ement i s

an unambi guous i ndi cat i on t hat Packgen i t sel f di d not bel i eve i t

had a bi ndi ng agr eement wi t h BP as of t hat dat e. Nothi ng i n t he

r ecor d i ndi cates t hat a deal occur r ed between May 24 and 29; t o the

cont r ar y, on May 26, BP st at ed that i t woul d have t o appr ove

Packgen' s speci f i cat i ons bef or e pl aci ng an or der .

Thus, i t was appropr i at e f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o wonder

" t o what or der does [ Bi gi ' s] emai l supposedl y r ef er ?" Packgen, 957

F. Supp. 2d at 93. The recor d of Packgen' s own st at ement s pr i or t o

Bi gi ' s emai l consi st ent l y poi nt s t o ongoi ng negot i at i ons bet ween

t he par t i es r at her t han a bi ndi ng agr eement . Mor eover , Bi gi

t est i f i ed i n hi s deposi t i on t hat he had no knowl edge of any or der s

t hat Packgen had f r omBP, and t hat he woul d not have "been par t of

any cont r act s or commer ci al agr eement s. " [ App. 96769] I n l i ght

of t he r ecor d as a whol e, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

concl usi on t hat Bi gi ' s emai l i s not an admi ssi on f or t he pur poses

of t he St at ut e of Frauds.

b. Deni al s Unsuppor t ed By Recor d Ci t at i ons

Packgen al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have

deemed cer t ai n por t i ons of i t s s t at ement of mat er i al f act s

admi t t ed, because BP f ai l ed t o pr oper l y cont r over t t hem wi t h

ci t at i ons t o t he r ecor d i n vi ol at i on of Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l

Procedur e 56. Packgen, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 9495 & n. 84. Accordi ng

-17-


18/27

t o Packgen, i f t he di st r i ct cour t had admi t t ed i t s st at ement s as

uncont r over t ed, t hey woul d sat i sf y the j udi ci al admi ssi on except i on

t o t he St at ut e of Frauds.

Packgen' s ar gument proceeds as t hough t he admi ssi on of

uncont r over t ed st at ement s of f act i s an i r on- cl ad r ul e. That

posi t i on does not comport wi t h our case l aw. I n Cabn Hernndez v.

Phi l i p Mor r i s USA, I nc. , we expl ai ned t hat "i n t he event t hat a

part y opposi ng summary j udgment f ai l s t o act i n accor dance wi t h t he

r i gor s t hat such a r ul e i mposes, a di st r i ct cour t i s f r ee, i n t he

exer ci se of i t s sound di scr et i on, t o accept t he movi ng par t y' s

f act s as st at ed. " 486 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . I n ot her wor ds,

a par t y' s f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t he f or mal r equi r ement s of Rul e 56

does not t r i gger a mechani cal r esponse f r om t he di st r i ct cour t .

I nst ead, t he di st r i ct cour t acts wi t hi n i t s di scr et i on t o r espond

i n a manner appr opr i at e t o t he ci r cumst ances of t he case. Thi s

appr oach i s consi st ent wi t h t he l anguage i n t he Di st r i ct of Mai ne

Local Rul e 56( f ) , whi ch pr ovi des t hat t he cour t "may di sr egar d any

st at ement of f act not suppor t ed by a speci f i c ci t at i on t o r ecor d

mater i al pr oper l y consi dered on summary j udgment . " D. Me. Loc. R.

56( f ) ( emphasi s added) .

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on.

I t obser ved t hat BP "has consi st ent l y deni ed t hat i t ent er ed i nt o

an or al agr eement , and has suppor t ed i t s deni al wi t h t he swor n

st at ement s of [ i t s] empl oyees. " Packgen, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 95.

-18-


19/27

Fur t her , i t noted t hat Packgen had not managed i n t he cour se of

di scover y "t o est abl i sh a BP admi ssi on t hat woul d qual i f y under t he

j udi ci al admi ssi on except i on. I nst ead, i t posi t ed asser t i ons of

i t s own empl oyees as st atement s of mater i al f act and at t empt ed t o

pl ace t he onus on BP not onl y t o deny t hem, but al so t o pr of f er

evi dence j ust i f yi ng t he deni al . " I d. I t concl uded t hat "[ i ] n

t hese unusual ci r cumst ances, t he Cour t hol ds Packgen t o what

Packgen i t sel f f ound dur i ng di scover y. " I d. We f i nd t hese r easons

mor e t han adequat e t o j ust i f y t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on not t o

deem Packgen' s s t at ement s admi t t ed f or t he pur pose of t he

except i on.

I n sum, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n deci di ng t hat

nei t her except i on t o t he St at ut e of Frauds appl i es. We af f i r m i t s

ent r y of j udgment i n f avor of BP on Count I I I .

C. Equitable Relief (Count IV)

I n Count I V, Packgen sought equi t abl e rel i ef under

t heor i es of unj ust enr i chment and quant um mer ui t . 2 The di st r i ct

cour t , r el yi ng on Paf f hausen v. Bal ano, 708 A. 2d 269 ( Me. 1998) ,

di st i ngui shed t he t wo t heor i es: "Quant um mer ui t . . . i nvol ves

2 The capt i on t o Count I V al so i ncl udes "Rest i t ut i on, " butr est i t ut i on i n t hi s cont ext i s a t ype of r emedy, not a cause of

act i on separ at e and di st i nct f r om unj ust enr i chment . SeeRest at ement ( Thi r d) of Rest i t ut i on & Unj ust Enr i chment 1 ( 2011)( "A per son who i s unj ust l y enr i ched at t he expense of anot her i ssubj ect t o l i abi l i t y i n rest i t ut i on. ") ; Goodwi n v. C. N. J . , I nc. ,436 F. 3d 44, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( "Rest i t ut i on i s a r emedyassoci at ed wi t h t he concept of unj ust enr i chment . " ) . Ther ef or e t hedi st r i ct cour t cor r ectl y decl i ned t o anal yze i t separ at el y.

-19-


20/27

r ecover y f or servi ces or mat er i al s pr ovi ded under an i mpl i ed

cont r act . Unj ust enr i chment descr i bes recover y f or t he val ue of

t he benef i t r et ai ned when t her e i s no cont r act ual r el at i onshi p. "

Packgen, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 96 ( quot i ng Paf f hausen, 708 A. 2d at

271) . To pr evai l on an unj ust enr i chment cl ai m under Mai ne l aw, a

pl ai nt i f f must show t hat " ( 1) i t conf er r ed a benef i t on t he ot her

par t y; ( 2) t he ot her par t y had appr eci at i on or knowl edge of t he

benef i t ; and ( 3) t he accept ance or r et ent i on of t he benef i t was

under such ci r cumst ances as t o make i t i nequi t abl e f or i t t o r et ai n

t he benef i t wi t hout payment of i t s val ue. " I d. ( quot i ng Pl at z

Assocs. v. Fi nl ey, 973 A. 2d 743, 750 ( Me. 2009) ) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . A quant um mer ui t cl ai m r equi r es pr oof

" t hat ( 1) ser vi ces wer e r ender ed t o t he def endant by the pl ai nt i f f ;

( 2) wi t h the knowl edge and consent of t he def endant ; and ( 3) under

ci r cumst ances t hat make i t r easonabl e f or t he pl ai nt i f f t o expect

payment . " I d. ( quot i ng Paf f hausen, 708 A. 2d at 271) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . The di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y concl uded

t hat Packgen cannot pr evai l under ei t her t heor y.

1. Unjust Enrichment

Packgen ar gued bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t t hat i t pr ovi ded

t echni cal i nf or mat i on t hat BP used t o devel op i t s boom

speci f i cat i on. I t ur ged t he di st r i ct cour t t o f ol l ow APG, I nc. v.

MCI Tel ecommuni cat i ons Cor p. , 436 F. 3d 294 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) , i n

whi ch t hi s cour t al l owed an unj ust enr i chment cl ai m t o sur vi ve

-20-


21/27

summary j udgment where the pl ai nt i f f act ed as a mi ddl eman i n t he

sal e of pr epai d tel ephone car ds bet ween the def endant and a t hi r d

par t y. The def endant i n APG ul t i mat el y deal t di r ectl y wi t h t he

t hi r d par t y, cut t i ng t he pl ai nt i f f out of t he deal . The cour t hel d

t hat t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence t o r ai se a quest i on of f act

r egar di ng whet her t he t i me and ef f or t expended by the pl ai nt i f f t o

secur e t he deal const i t ut ed a benef i t f or t he def endant . I d. at

30506.

The di st r i ct cour t deci ded t hat t hi s case i s l ess

anal ogous t o APG t han t o For r est Associ ates v. Passamaquoddy Tr i be,

760 A. 2d 1041 ( Me. 2000) . I n For r est Associ at es, t he pl ai nt i f f was

a management consul t i ng f i r m t hat pr ovi ded t he def endant wi t h a

market assessment and pr oposal r el ated t o a bi ngo operat i on. The

Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t of Mai ne vacated a j udgment i n t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s f avor on i t s unj ust enr i chment cl ai m. I t hel d t hat

"t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d f ai l s t o est abl i sh t hat For r est

conf er r ed a benef i t on t he Tr i be. Al t hough For r est cr eat ed t he

compr ehensi ve pl an and pr esent ed i t t o the Tr i be, t her e i s no

evi dence t hat t he Tr i be benef i t t ed f r omei t her t he pr esent at i on or

t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he pl an. " For r est Assocs. , 760 A. 2d

at 1046. We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he same concl usi on

appl i es her e.

On appeal , Packgen r epeat s i t s ar gument t hat BP used

i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by Packgen " t o devel op a gener al speci f i cat i on

-21-


22/27

f or boom and t o r eal i ze cost savi ngs. " I t f ai l s, however , t o ci t e

any evi dence i n t he r ecor d support i ng t hat st atement , and our own

r evi ew of t he r ecor d has not uncovered any. The r ecor d shows t hat

Packgen pr ovi ded i nf or mat i on about i t s boom desi gn t o BP, but

not hi ng i ndi cat es t hat BP used t he i nf or mat i on i n any way f or i t s

own benef i t . Ther ef or e, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment i n

f avor of BP on t he unj ust enr i chment cl ai m.

2. Quantum Meruit

Packgen f ar es no bet t er under a t heor y of quant ummer ui t .

I n Paf f ausen, t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t of Mai ne expl ai ned t hat a

successf ul quant ummer ui t cl ai mr equi r es "proof t hat ser vi ces wer e

r ender ed under ci r cumst ances consi st ent wi t h cont r act r el at i ons.

I t must appear t hat t he one who rendered t he servi ces expected

compensat i on and that t he one who recei ved or benef i t t ed f r om t he

servi ces so under st ood, and by her wor ds or conduct j ust i f i ed t he

expect at i on. " 708 A. 2d at 272 ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

I n t hi s case, i t i s not appar ent what " ser vi ces" Packgen

pr ovi ded t hat mi ght be t he basi s f or a quant um mer ui t cl ai m. I t

t ook st eps t o t est and modi f y i t s pr oduct and pr ovi de BP wi t h

i nf or mat i on i n an ef f or t t o compl et e a sal e. We do not t hi nk t hat

t ype of act i vi t y i s a "servi ce" i n t he or di nar y sense of t he wor d.

But even set t i ng t hat poi nt asi de, t her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d

t hat suggest s ei t her part y expected BP t o compensat e Packgen f or

-22-


23/27

anyt hi ng ot her t han t he pr oduct i t sel f . I n ot her wor ds, t he

negot i at i ons bet ween t he part i es her e wer e f or a sal e of goods, not

t he pr ovi si on of servi ces. I n t he absence of any expect at i on of

payment f or servi ces r ender ed, t he quant ummer ui t cl ai mmust f ai l .

D. Promissory Estoppel (Count V)

Packgen' s f i nal cl ai m i s f or equi t abl e r el i ef under a

t heor y of pr omi ssor y est oppel . Mai ne cour t s have adopt ed t he

def i ni t i on of pr omi ssor y est oppel i n t he Rest at ement ( Second) of

Cont r act s, whi ch st at es t hat " [ a] pr omi se whi ch t he pr omi sor shoul d

r easonabl y expect t o i nduce act i on or f or bear ance on t he par t of

t he pr omi see or a t hi r d person and whi ch does i nduce such act i on or

f or bear ance i s bi ndi ng i f i nj ust i ce can be avoi ded onl y by

enf orcement of t he pr omi se. " Rest atement ( Second) of Cont r act s

90( 1) ; see Harvey v. Dow, 962 A. 2d 322, 325 ( Me. 2008) . The

par t i es di sput e whet her under Mai ne l aw t he doct r i ne appl i es t o a

pr omi se t hat i s other wi se unenf or ceabl e under t he St at ut e of

Fr auds.

Mai ne cour t s have not def i ni t i vel y set t l ed t hi s quest i on.

I n some cases, t hey have rel i ed on Sect i on 139 of t he Rest atement ,

whi ch pr ovi des t hat pr omi ssor y est oppel may appl y "not wi t hst andi ng

t he St at ut e of Frauds i f i nj ust i ce can be avoi ded onl y by

enf orcement of t he pr omi se. " Rest atement ( Second) of Cont r act s

139( 1) . Thus, i n Chapman v. Bomann, t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t

of Mai ne al l owed a pr omi ssor y est oppel cl ai mt o go f or war d seeki ng

-23-


24/27

enf or cement of an or al pr omi se t o si gn a cont r act f or t he sal e of

r eal est at e, despi t e t he f act t hat t he unsi gned cont r act was i t sel f

unenf orceabl e under t he St atut e of Fr auds. 381 A. 2d 1123, 1129

( Me. 1978) . But i n t he cont ext of empl oyment cont r act s, Mai ne

cour t s have cat egor i cal l y r ej ect ed t he appl i cat i on of pr omi ssor y

est oppel t o pr omi ses ot her wi se unenf or ceabl e under t he St at ut e.

See St ear ns v. Emery- Waterhouse Co. , 596 A. 2d 72, 7475 ( Me. 1991)

( "Al t hough sect i on 139 of t he Rest at ement may pr omot e j ust i ce i n

ot her si t uat i ons, i n t he empl oyment cont ext i t cont r avenes t he

pol i cy of t he St at ut e t o pr event f r aud. ") .

We have not f ound a Mai ne case addr essi ng t hi s quest i on

i n t he speci f i c cont ext of t hi s case, a sal e of goods over f i ve

hundr ed dol l ar s. Never t hel ess, we t hi nk t he cour t ' s di scussi on i n

Chapman i s suf f i ci ent l y t hor ough f or us t o ant i ci pat e how t he st at e

cour t woul d pr oceed. See Noonan v. St apl es, 556 F. 3d 20, 30 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ( "Al t hough we r ecogni ze t hat i n exer ci si ng our di ver si t y

j ur i sdi ct i on we must t r ead l i ght l y i n of f er i ng i nt er pret at i ons of

st at e l aw wher e cont r ol l i ng pr ecedent i s scar ce, we ar e al so

obl i ged t o pr ovi de our ' best guess' as t o open quest i ons of st at e

l aw when necessar y. " ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

I n Chapman, t he cour t i nvoked t he "gener al equi t abl e

pr i nci pl e t hat si nce i t i s t he pur pose of t he St at ut e of Frauds t o

pr event f r aud, t hat St at ut e cannot be per mi t t ed t o be i t sel f an

i nst r ument of f r aud. " 381 A. 2d at 1128. I t al so expr essl y adopt ed

-24-


25/27

Comment f t o Sect i on 178 of t he Rest atement , whi ch expl ai ns t hat

pr omi ssory est oppel may appl y t o a pr omi se t hat i s unenf orceabl e

under t he St at ut e " i f t he st at ut e woul d ot her wi se oper at e t o

def r aud. " I d. at 1129 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . The

cour t cl ar i f i ed t hat i t s adopt i on of t he st andar d i n Comment f does

not r equi r e t hat t he pr omi sor "made the pr omi se wi t h an actual

subj ect i ve i nt ent i on t o r el i nqui sh t he r i ght t o asser t t he St at ut e

of Fr auds or wi t h an act ual i nt ent i on ot her wi se t o decei ve. " I d.

Rat her , t he cr i t er i on i s "whet her al l t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances

. . . show, obj ecti vel y, t hat a f r aud, or a subst ant i al i nj ust i ce

t ant amount t o a f r aud, woul d be perpet r ated upon t he pr omi see were

t he pr omi sor al l owed t o asser t t he St at ut e of Frauds as a bar . "

I d.

Al t hough t he f act s of Chapman are not anal ogous t o t hi s

case, 3 the cour t spoke i n t er ms of gener al pr i nci pl e. I t appear s

3 I n Chapman, t he def endant s ( a husband and wi f e) i nvoked t heSt at ut e of Fr auds as a def ense agai nst t he enf or cement of acont r act f or a sal e of r eal est at e t hat t hey had not si gned. 381A. 2d at 1128. The wi f e, however , had made a "separate anci l l arypr omi se . . . t hat she and her husband woul d si gn, and r et ur n, t hedocument . " I d. at 1126. The i ssue f aci ng the cour t was whet her t hesepar ate pr omi se t o si gn the document was enf orceabl e underpr omi ssor y est oppel . The cour t not ed t hat t he pr omi se t o si gn was"not i t sel f wi t hi n t he t ext ual l anguage of t he St at ut e of Frauds, "but i s never t hel ess " deemed t o be wi t hi n the penumbr a of t he

St at ut e' s pol i cy and t hus becomes unenf or ceabl e l i ke t he under l yi ngagr eement t o whi ch i t r el at es. " I d. at 1128. Thus, t he cour t drewa di st i nct i on bet ween t he "penumbr al pol i cy" and t he "actual t er ms"of t he St at ut e, i d. at 1129, and t her e i s a st r ong ar gument t hat i twoul d pr ohi bi t t he use of pr omi ssory est oppel out r i ght when, as i nt he case bef or e us, t he act ual t er ms of t he St at ut e appl y. SeeSt ear ns, 596 A. 2d at 74 ( expl ai ni ng t hat "al t hough we i nvoked t he

-25-


26/27

t o seek a mi ddl e cour se bet ween an out r i ght bar on t he use of

pr omi ssory est oppel on one hand and t he whol esal e use of t he

doct r i ne t o evade t he St at ut e on t he ot her . Thus, i t adopt s a

usef ul l i mi t i ng pr i nci pl e, consi st ent wi t h t he pur pose of t he

St at ut e, t hat al l ows cour t s t o appl y pr omi ssory est oppel when " i t

woul d be gr ossl y unj ust and, t her ef or e, t ant amount t o a f r aud on

t he pl ai nt i f f s t o al l ow [ a] def endant t o asser t t he St at ut e of

Frauds. " I d. at 1129.

Of cour se, i t i s ent i r el y possi bl e t hat t he Mai ne cour t s

woul d bar t he use of pr omi ssory est oppel cl ai ms ent i r el y f or t he

sal e of goods, j ust as t hey di d i n t he empl oyment cont ext i n

St ear ns. See supr a n. 4. But whether we f ol l ow St ear ns or Chapman,

Packgen' s cl ai m f ai l s. Under St ear ns, the cl ai m woul d be

cat egor i cal l y bar r ed, and t her e i s no evi dence f r om whi ch a j ur y

coul d f i nd t hat Packgen has met t he st andard set f or t h i n Chapman.

Ther e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d, such as evi dence of del i ber at e

decept i on or bad f ai t h, r eveal i ng "a subst ant i al i nj ust i ce

t ant amount t o a f r aud. " See Chapman, 381 A. 2d at 1129. Thus, t he

r ubr i c of pr omi ssor y est oppel , our deci si on i n Chapman act ual l yappl i ed an equi t abl e est oppel and extended i t onl y to an anci l l ar ypr omi se t o make a wr i t i ng") ( emphasi s added) ; J ol ovi t z v. Ci t y ofWat er vi l l e, No. Ci v. A. AP- 01- 82, 2003 WL 22100663, at *2 ( Super .

Ct . Me. Aug. 26, 2003) ( "The agr eement [ i n Chapman] was not t hesal es cont r act i t sel f , whi ch woul d bump mor e squar el y i nt o theSt at ut e of Frauds consi der at i ons. " ) . As we expl ai n, Packgen' scl ai m f ai l s whet her we f ol l ow t he st andar d set f or t h i n Chapman orbar t he cl ai m out r i ght as t he cour t di d i n t he empl oyment cont exti n St ear ns. Ther ef or e, we can l eave t hat quest i on f or t he Mai necour t s t o set t l e.

-26-


27/27

di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y concl uded t hat t he pr omi ssory est oppel

cl ai m f ai l s as a mat t er of l aw.

III. CONCLUSION

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, weAFFIRM t he di s tr i ct court ' s

r ul i ng.

-27-

Packgen v. BP Exploration & Production, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents