The Parties ♣ IntegraCore is a logistics company that provides supply chain management, warehousing, packaging, and distribution services to its clients. Once again each side claims breach and so the complicated history of the Agreement and the parties’ attempts to operate under the Agreement must be understood. Another dispute arose shortly thereafter that was resolved by yet a third agreement in 2011 (the Agreement)-the subject of this interlocutory appeal. Soon thereafter, each claimed the other had breached the agreement and the impasse was resolved by way of a new agreement in 2010. BACKGROUND ♢ This saga of business contractual dysfunction began when iDrive and IntegraCore entered into a 2009 agreement. IntegraCore, on interlocutory appeal, challenges those decisions. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of iDrive and denied IntegraCore’s motion for summary judgment. On competing motions for partial summary judgment, the district court concluded that iDrive performed under the contract and IntegraCore did not. Both iDrive and IntegraCore alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. iDrive sued IntegraCore for breach of the agreement and IntegraCore counterclaimed. IntegraCore shipping and transportation costs. The petition for rehearing is denied in all other respects. Paragraphs 69 and 70 have been revised to specifically address issues IntegraCore raised in a petition for rehearing, and we hereby grant the petition to that limited extent. This Amended Opinion replaces the Opinion in Case No. MORTENSEN, Judge: ♡ iDrive Logistics LLC contracted with IntegraCore LLC to provide IntegraCore with services designed to optimize its 1. MORTENSEN authored this Amended Opinion, in which JUDGES GREGORY K. Price, Attorneys for Appellee JUDGE DAVID N. 20150857-CA Filed MaFourth District Court, Provo Department The Honorable Fred D. 2018 UT App 40 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS IDRIVE LOGISTICS LLC, Appellee, v.
0 kommentar(er)
