Vatix Intelligence Inc. V. Freud Case Summary

674 Words2 Pages

SCREENING MEMORANDUM TO: Judge Harris FROM: Ernst Pirre-Louis RE: Vatix Intelligence, Inc. v. Freud DATE: April 12, 2018. Recommendation: OSC recommends affirming. You are lead judge. No other judge has yet voted. I recommend that you affirm and adopt OSC’s opinion. Background: Vatix Intelligence, Inc. (“Vatix”) contracted with Freud, LLC (“Freud”) for the acquisition of some of Vatix’s assets. J.A. 4006. Pursuant to the contract, Freud was to own and operate Vatix’s assets. J.A. 4007. In exchange for Vatix’s asset’s, Freud agreed to pay Vatix $513,000; Freud also agreed it would give Vatix the option to buy back its assets at a “deferred price” if certain qualifying events occurred, such as the resignation of Freud’s President. …show more content…

J.A. 3998, 4095. However, Freud did not perform under the contract, refusing to honor the deferred price agreement. J.A. 4184. Vatix filed suit against Freud claiming that Freud’s conduct amounted to an unfair and deceptive trade practice. J.A. 3. During the pre-trial conference, Vatix proposed a jury instruction on the key issue of whether Freud’s conduct was “in or affecting commerce.” J.A. 3834. Rather than rule on commerce issue the district court adopted Vatix’s jury instruction. J.A. 5092. The jury found that Freud’s conduct was not “in or affecting commerce.” J.A. …show more content…

To “affect commerce” the defendant’s conduct must have a tangible effect on the public. See Esposito v. Talbert & Bright, Inc., 641 S.E.2d. 695, 698 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (denying summary judgment on the grounds that the defendant’s conduct did not have an impact beyond the contracting parties). Furthermore, Vatix proposed the jury instruction it now challenges, therefore, Vatix’s argument is likely barred as an invited error. J.A. 3834; See Shields v. United States, 273 U.S. 583, 586 (1927) (“a court cannot be asked by counsel to take a step in a case and later be convicted of error, because it has complied with such request.”); see also Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1993) (“[a] defendant . . . cannot complain of error which he himself

Open Document