FutureFuel Chemical Co. v. Lonza, No. 12-3433 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseFFCC filed suit against Lonza, alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Lonza on the contract claim because the parties did not reach a meeting of the minds as to all terms and, therefore, there was no contract formed; the district court properly granted summary judgment on the promissory estoppel claim where nothing in the Letter of Intent or in the parties' conduct suggested that Lonza made a firm promise to purchase 1000 metric tons of Diethoxymethane in 2009; the court dismissed as moot FFCC's claim that the district court abused its discretion in denying FFCC's motion for a jury trial; dismissed FFCC's appeal as it pertains to the unsealing of the record for lack of appellate jurisdiction; and affirmed the district court's grant of attorney's fees.
Court Description: Civil Case - diversity. In this consolidated appeal, district court did not err in granting summary judgment on breach of contract claim, as letter of intent and ongoing negotiations demonstrated there was no mutual assent and the parties did not reach a meeting of the minds as to all terms. Absent a contract, FFCC cannot succeed on its promissory estoppel claim. The district court's decision to deny a motion for jury trial is now moot. The district court's retention of the question whether to unseal portions of the record renders an appeal on that question premature. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys fees and the district court's award is affirmed.
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.