Citation
Description of the case
This was Case 11.2 D.C., 2011 titled Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates which was argued on February 16, 2010, and finally decided on January 6, 2011.
The Parties to the case
The parties involved in this case were Elena Sturdza who was the complainant and appellant, and the United Arab Emirates Federal Government, et.al who were the defendants.
Judge in attendance
In attendance was the associate judge, Justice Glickman, who presided over the case.
The level of the court under jurisdiction of the case
This was a case on-appeal lodged at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Brief Facts or Merits of the Case
The United Arab Emirates organized a competition for architectural design for its new embassy and the chancery building that was to be located in Washington, D.C. The competition was held in 1993, and the architectural design of Elena Sturdza was considered the best. At the time of the competition, Elena Sturdza was licensed to practice in Maryland and Texas, but not in Washington, D.C. The federal government of the United Arab Emirates informed her that she will be awarded the contract because of the superiority of her designs. Elena Sturdza then entered into a negotiation with the government of the United Arab Emirates.
Within the two years that followed, the two parties exchanged various contract proposals based on her designs. With the help of an engineered hired by the client, her designs were modified in order to meet some of the requirements. Upon mutual agreement, the two parties agreed to defer payments until that time that the contract will be completed.
The government of the United Arab Emirates sent her the final draft agreement in early 1996 that incorporated the charges that had been mandated by government’s representative. Sturdza assented to the charges and informed the ambassador about the same. The government of the United Arab Emirates then stopped all communication with Sturdza without any explanation. It did not sign the anticipated contract with her for reasons that were not clear to her. She later realized that the contract had been awarded to Angelos Demetriou, an architect in Washington, D.C. On further analysis of the proposal that the government of the United Arab Emirates had sent to the National Capital Planning Commission, Sturdza realized that there was a copyright breach.
The design was different from what Angelos Demetriou had entered in the competition. Sturdza realized that the design that had been used by Angelos infringed on her intellectual rights. Based on these facts, Sturdza filed a suit in 1998 against the government of United Arab Emirates and Angelos Demetriou in order to get compensated for the breach of contract and infringement of intellectual property rights.
The Legal Issue to be Resolved
In this case, the court was expected to resolve the issue of whether there was a legal reason to compel the government of the United Arab Emirates to compensate Sturdza for the substantial work she had done. She claimed compensation for her architectural work for the embassy, and damages for the infringement into her intellectual property by Angelos Demetriou. The court was to resolve this issue taking into consideration the fact that Sturdza had admitted that she had conducted some substantial work for the client before obtaining a license that authorizes her to render her architectural services in the District. The law allows the architects who are not licensed in the District to enter into agreement with clients, but it prohibits them from doing any substantial work before obtaining the license.
Ruling of the Court under Jurisdiction of the Case
The court ruled that it is legal for an architect licensed in other states to agree to perform architectural services for a client in the District as long as he or she obtains the license before starting any work. The jury held that the architect should not engage in any substantial work till he or she is granted the license to operate within the District in order to make the contract legally binding. Sturdza claimed a compensation for a substantial work she did for the United Arab Emirates before obtaining the legal requirements. The court held that she was within the law to participate in the competition and to enter into an agreement with the client to perform the contract.
However, she was not supposed to perform any substantial work till such a time that she had obtained the license. She failed to follow the law, and for this reason, she could not be protected. This meant that the government of the United Arab Emirates was not entitled to pay her for the services she had rendered because she was not licensed to render such services in the District at that time. She had lost her case on the issue of compensation on the work she had done.
Reason or Legal Bases of the Decision
It is important to note that Elena Sturdza had filed a suit against the government of the United Arab Emirates and Angelos Demetriou for a breach of contract and infringement of her intellectual property right. Sturdza accused Angelos Demetriou of using her intellectual property without prior permission. Demetriou had passed Sturdza’s work as his own, and this was a direct violation of intellectual property rights. What Demetriou had submitted to the United Arab Emirates during the 1993 competition was very different from what he passed as his own work when he was awarded the tender.
The design that he presented had the fundamental features of what Sturdza had presented during the competition. She also accused the United Arab Emirates of colluding with Demetriou to steal her intellectual property. Sturdza had worked closely with this government to modify her design, and when it was ready for implementation, the contract was awarded to a different architect, but Sturdza’s design was used. This meant that this government colluded with Sturdza to abuse her copyrights.
The second accusation that Sturdza lodged was that she had won the competition, and had formally started the process of signing the contract based on her design, but the contract was later awarded to a different architect. She claimed that she was planning to get the license to work in Washington, D.C. before commencing the work. She claimed that although she participated in the competition and was in the process of entering the contract with this government, she intended to obtain the license before assenting to the contract. She also argued that given the uniqueness of Washington, D.C. to Americans and to the world, there were some exemptions to its licensing law.
However, one fact that complicated her case was that there is a law in place that requires all the architects practicing in the District to be licensed in order to consider their operations legally binding. At the time when Sturdza entered into competition, she was not licensed to work in the District. When she started her agreement with the government of United Arab Emirates, she was not covered by the law.
Edward Fehr v. George E. Algard, et al.
Citation
Description of the case
This was Case WL 13670, 2011, titled Edward Fehr v. George E. Algard, et al. which was argued on October 6, 2010, and finally decided on January 5, 2011.
The Parties to the case
The parties involved in this case were Edward Fehr who was the complainant and appellant, and George Algard, Cathy Algard, Sterling Harbor Motel & Marina Inc., Sterling Harbor Bait, and Sterling Harbor Duke, who were the defendants.
Judge in attendance
In attendance were Judges Axelrad and Lihotz, who presided over the case.
The level of the court under jurisdiction of the case
This was a case on-appeal lodged at the Superior Court of New Jersey.
Brief Facts or Merits of the Case
The defendants in this case made an appeal against a decision made by the lower court awarding the appellant payments for a breach in contract. The defendants had organized a fishing contest, and there were specific rules that were to be followed by the contestants in order to win the prizes. One of the rules stated that the participants were supposed to submit fish caught within the duration of the competition. Any fish caught before or after this day would be disqualified.
Another important requirement relevant to this case was that the fish that had to be submitted had to be alive. The judges in this competition were given the permission to decide on whether the fish submitted for the competition had the qualities desired. The rules stated that the judges had the sole mandate to make decision about disqualification in case any of the contestants delivered substandard products.
The plaintiff was disqualified for cheating when the judges claimed that the fish he had entered for weighting was not captured on the specific day of the competition. They claimed that the fish was in a very bad condition, and therefore, could not have been caught on that particular day. Moreover, the fish was dead, a fact that violated one of the requirements which stated that the fish had to be alive at the time of weighing.
He was therefore, not awarded the prize even though the fish was the heaviest. The Law Division judge had awarded the plaintiff damages for the breach of contract by the defendants. In the appeal, the defendants argued that the Law Division judge erred in his decision. They claimed that the judge failed to take into consideration the dishonest nature of the appellant which implied that he had violated the covenant of good faith in the contract. He did not observe fair dealings and was interested in getting the prize without following due procedures. They claimed that this would be unfair to the participants who honestly followed the procedure.
The Legal Issue to be Resolved
The court of appeal was supposed to determine if the appellant was genuinely awarded the compensation by the lower court. The defendants challenged the decision of the lower court in the court of appeal because they felt that due procedure was followed in disqualification of the appellant from the competition. The organizers of this competition set specific rules about the competition, and it was clear who could be awarded the prize.
According to the defendants, the appellant breached two of the conditions that had to be met. The first condition that was breached was that the fish submitted for the weighing had to be the one caught on that particular day. The fish that the appellant submitted milky white, had sunken eyes, and off color, indication that it had taken several days out of water. This automatically violated the second condition that required all the participants to submit living fish for weighing. The defendants felt that the participant had been dishonest, and therefore, could not be allowed to participate in the competition.
Decision or Ruling of the Court under Jurisdiction of the Case
The court ruled that when the sponsors, who were now the defendants, organized the contest, they had a specific goal that they wanted to achieve. That is why they set specific rules and regulations that had to govern the conduct of the participants once they agreed to enter into this contest. The court of appeal held that the lower court failed to take into consideration the fact that these rules could have been violated, making the appellant unfit for the prize.
For this reason, the court overturned the decision of the lower court. It ordered for further investigation by a fact finder, but made clear a possible decision that would be made once the investigation was over. The court stated that if the fact finders determine that the judges acted in bad faith in disqualifying the appellant, then the appellant will prevail. However, if the disqualification was based on good faith, and the desire to only award the honest participants, then the case against the sponsors will be defeated.
Reason or Legal Bases of the Decision
The court of appeal based its judgment on the policy of good faith in a given contract. According to the jury, any dishonesty in this tournament would undermine the intent of the sponsors of the tournament. The other contestants in this tournament who were honest had the right to be awarded. The act of the plaintiff in delivering a product that was not within the specification meant that he or she would be automatically be disqualified from the contest.
It was the legal duty of the judges to disqualify the appellant because of the violation of the law. When the judge realized that the participant had violated the regulations, all other fish in his boat were disqualified. The judges claimed that the appellant was already considered dishonest, and it was not easy to determine if other products were genuinely caught on that particular day. The court of appeal judges felt that if the appellant had violated the rules set for the tournament, then it would be considered a breach of the contract that he signed.
That would automatically disqualify him from the contest. If this was the case, then the lower court erred in their decision. However, the judges stated that there was need for further investigation to determine if the tournament judges acted in good faith. In case they acted in good faith, then the case would be defeated.