Merged companies disavow my contract

Censored question on Law Stack Exchange:

I had a contract for a service from Company A. Then either (we're getting different versions)

- Company B "officially took over the management of your account" from Company A, or

- Company B and Company A merged.

Then Company B merged with Company C. They say that they don't have the contract I signed, and the information they give me now is inconsistent with the terms of my contract, of which I have a DocuSign pdf.

The worst case for me is the contradictory information they are providing. It's fine for me if the contract stands as is. The best case would be the contract being terminated due to lost trust in this company and the market now having lower rates.

What happens now?

Given that you are not a party to the mergers, these cannot result in changes in your rights and obligations pursuant to your contract unless you agree to those changes. This means that the terms of your contract prevail over the contradictory information they are providing now.

The discrepancy between the scenarios "B took over management of the account" and "A and B merged" is likely relevant for determining which company should be named as defendant in a claim of breach of contract. That is because taking over management of an account could mean that B and/or C are just acting on behalf of A, in which case your counterparty still is company A rather than its agent B or C. An unforeseen agency relationship that ensued upon the formation of a contract does not change which entities are the parties to that contract.

Your options are to either insist on performance of the contract, by taking legal action if necessary, or propose an early termination thereof. The lack of details makes it impossible to assess whether your recent distrust of the merged companies or counterparty[-ies] is cognizable for purposes of forcing in court an early termination of the contract.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

30-day or 60-day notice of resignation

Questions of practical interest are the ones that tend to get improperly censored on the Law site of Stack Exchange. One of those questions is about employment contracts. The post did not provide the language of the contract, but the scenario can be paraphrased as follows: My current employment contract requires me to provide a 30-day notice if I decide to resign. This contract will expire in 45 days, but I already signed a one-year renewal that increases to 60 days the requisite notice of resignation. I need to quit because I just got a better job. Given the overlap of these clauses, does the requirement of 60-day notice already apply? Some relevant information is missing, which this time precludes an assertive answer. For an assessment of contract issues it is crucial to know the exact terms of the relevant clauses. This time one can only provide some examples of what to watch out for in these contracts. The renewal agreement might contain a language akin to " This agreement sup...
Read more

Interrogatory or subpoena on a witness

On Law StackExchange a litigant in pro per outlined the following scenario. Unfortunately his post got censored there, that being the fate of many interesting, practical inquiries. "I have sued a California mobile-home park LLC for breach of contract and a couple of additional issues. The park manager's failure to properly and lawfully manage the park (which I told the real estate company that owns the park about) are the reason for the suit. She is mentioned as part of the problem, but she is not named as a defendant. Now I need to request discovery from her, but I'm not sure if she is a "party to the action" whom I should give an interrogatory--or a non-party witness whom I would subpoena information from. Is employee manager a party to the action?" Regarding your claim of breach of contract, the only entity to be named as defendant is the one with which you entered the contract. Your contract is with the company, whether it is the LLC or --if different-- ...
Read more

Non-stretch of non-compete

 A contractor and company C agreed to the following clause titled "Non Solicitation Covenant": Contractor will not enter into or attempt to enter into (on Contractor's own behalf or on behalf of any other person or entity) a business relationship to provide the delivery of consulting services to any company or entity that: (i) was identified to Contractor by Company, as a Customer or Partner of Company, or (ii) was sold any of Company's software or services by Company. Company C used to have a customer A, whose owner created an entirely different business B. The extent of C's incompetence or misconduct prompted A to stop doing business with company C. B has never had a relationship with company C. The contractor met A's/B's owner by virtue of contractor's business relation with company C, and that owner has asked the contractor to do a project for B. The question is whether it is lawful for the contractor to accept B's request to do business with h...
Read more