The plaintiff financial consultant claimed a contractual fee after introducing a venture capital investor that later funded the defendant technology company.
The defendant argued the consulting agreement had expired and that the ultimate investing entity was not the approved investor listed in the agreement.
The court found the agreement had been orally extended and subsequently confirmed in writing through email exchanges and a letter, satisfying the contract’s amendment clause.
It further held that the approved investor name encompassed the venture capital business that ultimately invested, despite differences in the precise legal entities used.
The defendant breached the agreement by refusing to pay the contractual 4% fee after the financing closed within the extended tail period.
