Opinion ID: 1887503
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Olson's Breach-of-Contract Claim

Text: Olson also claims that Viking owes him a multi-year earnout under the earnout provision in the Founders agreement. Olson asserts that if (1) the statute of frauds does not apply to LLC agreements or (2) the statute of frauds does not bar Olson's breach-of-contract claim, then we must remand his contract claim for a new trial, because the Vice Chancellor erroneously disposed of Olson's contract claim on summary judgment. Olson is wrong even if we find that the Vice Chancellor ruled incorrectly on the statute of frauds issues, we need not remand Olson's contract claim, because the Vice Chancellor's statute of frauds rulings did not affect the outcome. The Vice Chancellor rejected a necessary element of Olson's contract claim when he found, as fact, that the founders never superseded the original cap and comp agreement. To succeed on his contract claim, Olson would have to prove that Viking's founders agreed to depart from the original cap and comp agreement, and that they agreed to the earnout provision in the draft Founders agreement. Obviously, Olson cannot establish this element of his claim, because the Vice Chancellor has already foundwith substantial evidentiary supportto the contrary. The Vice Chancellor's factual ruling is not clearly wrong, for which reason we need not remand Olson's contract claim.