BP Group, Inc. v. Kloeber, Jr., No. 11-1789 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseAppellant guaranteed CWA obligations under an Aircraft Management Agreement (AMA) between CWA and BP. BP sued CWA and appellant for breach of contract. The district court denied appellant's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to BP on its claims that appellant was liable under the guaranty for CWA's breach of the AMA. Appellant appealed. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding CWA waived any conceivable right to rescind it might have had; BP's consideration for the AMA was sufficient; CWA's performance was not excused; and the district court did not err in holding appellant liable for the paint and refurbishment costs. Because genuine disputes remained as to whether the AMA and Priester agreement were substantially similar and whether BP otherwise took reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary damages, the court reversed the district court's judgment. The court expressed no opinion as to whether appellant had waived his present-value argument.
Court Description: Civil case - contracts. The district court did not err in concluding the party BP contracted with had waived its right to rescind the aircraft management agreement in question; BP's consideration for the agreement was sufficient; the contracting party's performance was not excused; agreement made Kloeber liable for certain paint and refurbishment costs; award of damages vacated because genuine issues of fact remained concerning the agreement and whether BP took reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary damages.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.