Opinion ID: 1405111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application Creates Substantially Inequitable Results

Text: I vehemently disagree with the majority's conclusion that no inequitable result ensues from applying its new principles of law to the suit at issue. A jury, after considering all the evidence relating to the merits of the case, found Massey guilty of tortiously interfering with the plaintiffs' existing contracts, as well as making fraudulent misrepresentations and engaging in fraudulent concealment. It awarded the plaintiffs more than fifty million dollars in damages. As previously stated, much of that verdict would have gone to repaying the Harman Companies' creditors, who were also victims of Massey's conduct. To reverse such a verdict on the basis of a circuit court's decision on venue an issue wholly unrelated to the merits of the case cannot be fair or equitable, particularly without having given the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove, under the new principles of law, that the forum-selection clause in this case should not have been enforced. This injustice is further exacerbated by the fact that the applicable statutes of limitations prohibit the Harman Companies and Mr. Caperton from bringing their claims in Virginia, where the majority now holds they should have been brought. Thus, the plaintiffs are left without any recourse against Massey's illegal behavior. In support of its conclusion that retroactive application of the new legal principles is equitable in this case, the majority merely states that there is no evidence in the record to show that the forum-selection clause involved in this case was not freely bargained for by the actual signatories to the agreement. This incredibly narrow and result-oriented view of what makes the retroactive application of a new point of law inequitable is very troubling. The majority once again refuses to consider the fact that Massey was being sued because of its fraudulent course of conduct, one important element of which was its breach of the very contract that contained the forum-selection clause. To allow a party that engages in such fraudulent behavior to then benefit from the contract that it sought to destroy is the very definition of inequitable. Accordingly, substantial inequitable results are produced by the retroactive application of the majority's new legal principles and the new law should not be retroactively enforced in this case.