Two architects entered into a joint venture with a provision that upon 30 days’ notice, the joint venture could be terminated. After one of the architects gave notice to terminate the joint venture, the other architect came to Chuhak & Tecson explaining that he had already closed his office, transferred employees to the other architect and believed that the 30-day termination clause was not enforceable under the specific circumstances. The Chuhak client teamed with our attorneys to explain to the court various legal positions that would negate the enforcement of the termination clause. The Chuhak architect was a defendant in the resulting lawsuit based upon termination provisions that included payment of certain loans in connection with the venture.
Chuhak attorneys were able to present documents after discovering various emails that supported their position that the termination clause had been waived, or that under the circumstances, a concept of estoppel applied which prohibited the exercise of the termination clause.
The lawsuit was complicated by the fact that funding the litigation was difficult since the client had effectively closed its business in order to enter into the joint venture and now was in the process of reestablishing that business.
The client and Chuhak attorneys developed a plan of litigation that would accomplish goals within budgeted amounts. At all times, attention was given to making decisions on a risk-benefit analysis.
Eventually all goals were reached and the litigation was dismissed. The client successfully reestablished his own practice with the help of other attorneys in the corporate practice of Chuhak.