Skip to Content
Judiciary of the US Virgin Islands
Supreme Court
Superior Court
Supreme Court
of the
Virgin Islands
A+
A-
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
Judicial Home
Superior Court
About Us
Justices
Chief Justice Rhys S. Hodge
Associate Justice Maria M. Cabret
Associate Justice Ive Arlington Swan
Associate Justice Harold W.L. Willocks
Hours and Locations
Holidays
Contact Us
Administration
Offices of the Court
Office of Bar Admissions
Overview
Committee of Bar Examiners
Regular Admissions
Special Admissions
Pro Hac Vice Admissions
Bar Schedule of Fees
Office of the Clerk
Promulgation and Administrative Orders
Self Help Guide
Fee Schedule
Forms
Contact Us
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Members of Discipline Boards
Attorney Discipline
Judicial Discipline
Unauthorized Practice of Law
Attorney Registration
Contact Us
Rules
Opinions
Oral Arguments Calendar
Court Calendars
Archived Court Calendars
Current Court Calendars
Judicial Home
Superior Court
About Us
Justices
Chief Justice Rhys S. Hodge
Associate Justice Maria M. Cabret
Associate Justice Ive Arlington Swan
Associate Justice Harold W.L. Willocks
Hours and Locations
Holidays
Contact Us
Administration
Offices of the Court
Office of Bar Admissions
Overview
Committee of Bar Examiners
Regular Admissions
Special Admissions
Pro Hac Vice Admissions
Bar Schedule of Fees
Office of the Clerk
Promulgation and Administrative Orders
Self Help Guide
Fee Schedule
Forms
Contact Us
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Members of Discipline Boards
Attorney Discipline
Judicial Discipline
Unauthorized Practice of Law
Attorney Registration
Contact Us
Rules
Opinions
Oral Arguments Calendar
Court Calendars
Archived Court Calendars
Current Court Calendars
MENU
Supreme Court of the US Virgin Islands
»
Court Opinions
»
Published Opinions
»
2019 Published Opinions
»
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2017-0084
A+
A-
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2017-0084
Sub Menu
Skip Sidebar Navigation
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2017-0084
S. Ct. Crim. No. 2017-0043
Last item for navigation
Case Caption:
Basic Services, Inc. v. Government of the Virgin Islands
Case Number:
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2017-0084
Date:
06/13/2019
Author:
Brady, Douglas A.
Citation:
2019 VI 21
Summary:
In a case alleging breach of a contract to provide technological services for public schools, summary judgment for the Government is affirmed, but one of the grounds that the Superior Court relied on in its reasoning is rejected. Under V.I. R. CIV. P. 8(a), plaintiff’s pleadings were sufficient to assert a claim that the Government’s obligation of good faith under the contract required it to assist plaintiff in obtaining payment, encompassing all foreseeable obligations under the contract. Thus the Superior Court erred in finding this claim was not properly before it. On summary judgment, after the Government’s showing, the burden shifted to plaintiff to identify affirmative evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor. Since plaintiff failed to carry its burden in response to the Government’s motion under Rule 56 to identify facts rendering these issues disputed and triable, it was not error for the Superior Court to grant summary judgment in favor of the Government. Particularly with regard to the third and fourth elements of a contract claim—breach of the duty and damages—the affidavit relied upon by plaintiff was conclusory because it set forth conclusions that are unsupported by the record. Consequently, plaintiff had no right to summary judgment. The argument that it was error for the Superior Court to deny its motions to amend its complaint to add a claim for quantum meruit is without merit, since that claim would be futile because a contract existed between the parties, and plaintiff therefore could not recover on the equitable remedy of quantum meruit under governing case law. Thus there was no error in denying leave to amend. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Superior Court entered upon its October 17, 2017 rulings on the cross-motions for summary judgment is affirmed.
Attachment:
Open Document or Opinion