Brett Stuff
Judging the Judges
Term Year: 2018

Mission Product Holdings, Inc., Petitioner v. Tempnology, LLC, nka Old Cold LLC

Summary Analysis

DATE: 2019-05-20
DOCKET: 17-1657
NAME: Mission Product Holdings, Inc., Petitioner v. Tempnology, LLC, nka Old Cold LLC

   AUTHOR: Kagan
   JOINING: Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh
   GOOD: Yes

OPINION: Concurring
   AUTHOR: Sotomayor
   JOINING: None
   GOOD: No

OPINION: Dissenting
   AUTHOR: Gorsuch
   JOINING: None
   GOOD: No

Case Commentary

Absent a claim of malice, the ordinary rule is that no action lies against a party for resort to civil courts or for the assertion of a legal argument.
The above quote (sans internal quotation marks and all the rest) comes from the Dissent, whose principal view I disagree with. But who I am most grateful for the inclusion of this statement.

I, of course, disagree with the above statement (well, not technically, but certainly as to its overall format), as absent clear evidence to the contrary, I would hold that ALL lawsuits have malice at their heart... with Winning being an acceptable Positive Defence. Though, by no means, an indication of a lack of malice.

I find the Case (itself), to be unworthy of The Court's time (one of the line items in the above opinion based survey that starts the page), as I came to my own conclusion concerning the case after five minutes of (intensive and mind draining) Internet Research.

WARNING: I'm an idiot... an idiot who is not a lawyer and does not care much about The Law. Tread carefully. My dissection of ANY & ALL Legal Briefings originates from a desire to understand that which I PATENTLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND and an interest in the intersection between the Rule of Law and that of Morality & Ethics.

I feel better now that I've gotten that out of my system.

Executory Contract: a contract that has not yet been performed. But does not include contracts for which Monetary Payment is the sole outstanding variable.

Performed: A Contract whose terms have been fulfilled.

I don't know how I feel about Bankruptcy. I have mixed feelings.

More clearly, I know that I desire any Legal Construct (Corporations, Partnerships, Non-Profit, etc) to be readily available to all by virtue of a simple declaration.

To Wit:
RELIGION: I hereby do declare all writings of Brett Paufler to be Religious in nature, expressing as they do his Philosophy, which by any meaningful definition is synonymous with his Religion.
The previous notion is very much in line with my desire that it should be assumed that any sign, warning, label, or positive defence that could be posted, stated, or declared has been.

Many of the emails I get come with idiotic legal disclaimers. The world would be much simpler (and therefore, in much less need of lawyers) if the strictest limitations were included by implication (i.e. Statute) in every email or communication as a matter of course.

None of this has anything to do with the case at hand.

As I understand it, a Party in Bankruptcy can voluntary reject (not to be confused with rescind) any and all contracts at it's leisure, which is to say, it does not have to perform.

Other parties, however, do not have to accept the rejection and can continue to perform their end, which continues the contract to the extent the Bankrupt Party does not have to do anything.

I'm sure this gets complicated real quick, as the Bankrupt Party always has to do something (if that is only to do nothing) and that can become difficult to parse.
But your Honor, we would have had to cash the checks. And that is clearly an obligation... which in this instance, we do not wish to perform.

The example The Court likes to use concerns Rental Equipment with a corresponding Service Agreement in which the Rental Agency goes Bankrupt.

I am sure I could go Blue in the Face listing all the gotchas, so I will not bother to try.

It's so straightforward to me, my only real question is how the Distributions in the Bankruptcy could go forward prior to resolution of this case.

Judging the Judges

Next Entry


Let me know if my terms are off.

But as I see it...

A Bankrupt Party can Reject a Contract and thereby Rescind any Obligations it may have to Perform, but any effected party has no Obligation to Accept this Rejection and may Enforce any Rights it had as long as those Rights do not require any Positive Performance on the part of the Bankrupted Party.

So, yeah.

Crystal Clear.

So, what happens when the Rental Equipment is Sold at Auction or otherwise Repossessed?

© copyright 2019 Brett Paufler
A Personal Opinion/Editorial