Watkins Inc. v. Chilkoot Distributing, Inc., et al., No. 11-3490 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a manufacturer of various personal care, household, and organic products, filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not breach its contract with defendants. On remand from the court, the district court reentered summary judgment for plaintiff and dismissed defendants' equitable counterclaims. The court held that, regardless of whether the 1988 Agreement or the 2006 Agreement governed, changing the status of the Lambert Group from sales associate to manufacturer's representatives was not prohibited by either contract and there could not be a breach. The court rejected defendants' implied covenant argument on the merits and were not persuaded that plaintiff's actions breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; even if it was unclear which agreement controlled, summary judgment was still appropriate if plaintiff did not breach either agreement; and the court rejected defendants' counterclaims for relief under theories of quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment where equitable relief was unavailable in Minnesota where the rights of the parties were governed by a valid contract and where defendants have not identified any evidence suggesting an incomplete or confusing agreement regarding compensation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Contracts. For the court's earlier opinion in the case, see Watkins Inc. v. Chilkoot Distrib., Inc., 655 F3d 802 (8th Cir. 2011). The district court did not err in determining that Watkins' reclassification of a distributor known as the Lambert Group from sales associate to manufacturer's representative was not prohibited by either of the contracts between Watkins and Chilkoot and was not a breach of the contracts nor a breach of the implied convenant of good faith and fair dealing; district court did not err in dismissing counterclaims for equitable relief as equitable relief in unavailable under Minnesota law where, as here, the rights of the parties are governed by a valid contract.
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.