Opinion ID: 204050
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Breach of the Express Terms of the Purchase Agreement

Text: Sonoran first contends that PerkinElmer breached the express terms of the Purchase Agreement, focusing on §§ 6.1 and 6.3 of the Agreement. The district court held that no reasonable jury could conclude that PerkinElmer breached any express provision, and we agree. We begin with Sonoran's contention that PerkinElmer breached § 6.3(b) of the Purchase Agreement. That provision, entitled Sharing of Data, provided in part that The Parties agree that from and after the Closing Date they shall cooperate fully with each other to facilitate the transfer of the Acquired Assets from the Seller to the Buyer and the operation thereof by the Buyer.  Purchase Agreement § 6.3(b) (emphasis added). Although Sonoran apparently contends that the shall cooperate fully language of § 6.3(b) created a freestanding obligation on the part of PerkinElmer to cooperate with Sonoran and Donahue in operating the business, the unambiguous language of the provision was to the contrary. See, e.g., Eigerman v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 450 Mass. 281, 877 N.E.2d 1258, 1263 (2007) (courts interpret contracts according to plain terms where these are unambiguous). Specifically, § 6.3(b) stated that the duty of cooperation was intended to benefit PerkinElmer that the parties shall cooperate to facilitate transfer of Sonoran's business  to the Buyer  and to facilitate the operation thereof by the Buyer.  Purchase Agreement § 6.3(b) (emphasis added). The district court correctly held that no basis exists to conclude that PerkinElmer breached § 6.3 of the Purchase Agreement. Equally unavailing is Sonoran's argument that PerkinElmer breached § 6.1 of the Purchase Agreement by failing to hire Bogen. That provision stated that The Buyer or a subsidiary of the Buyer shall offer employment to those Employees identified on Schedule 6.1 attached hereto.. . . Purchase Agreement § 6.1 (first emphasis added). Sonoran maintains that the district court erred by failing to give any forward-looking meaning to the phrase shall offer employment such that PerkinElmer was required to make a better offer to Bogen post-closing. During negotiations with PerkinElmer before execution of the Purchase Agreement, Donahue made clear to PerkinElmer that Bogen would require a raise from his current salary of $100,000 a year to $125,000 a year, as well as reimbursement for commuting expenses and a fair commission, in order to remain with the business. In April 2001 PerkinElmer made offers to the eight Sonoran employees listed in Schedule 6.1 of the Purchase Agreement, including Norm Bogen. PerkinElmer offered Bogen only his current salary with no additional amount for expenses or commission. Bogen rejected the offer. Upon learning of Bogen's rejection, Donahue asked Greg Baxter, the head of Lithography, to increase the offer. Baxter represented that he would get a better offer for Bogen after closing, though no such language was added to the Purchase Agreement. PerkinElmer never made a better offer to Bogen, and Bogen never accepted employment with PerkinElmer. We agree with the district court that § 6.1 only required PerkinElmer to make a bona fide offer of employment to Bogen; it did not require PerkinElmer to make any particular offer to Bogen or to make a second, better offer to Bogen after closing when the first offer was rejected by Bogen. [2] Schedule 6.1 of the Purchase Agreement confirmed this interpretation of § 6.1. That schedule listed eight Sonoran employees, including Bogen, and indicated that each employee but Bogen had accepted PerkinElmer's offer of employment by the May 2, 2000, closing. This clearly indicated that making an offer of employment before execution of the Purchase Agreement complied with § 6.1. Under these circumstances, the failure to make an offer of employment to Bogen after execution of the Purchase Agreement could not be a violation of the Purchase Agreement. In sum, the district court correctly granted summary judgment that PerkinElmer did not breach any express terms of the Purchase Agreement.