Sumir Sennik

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action at trial, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendant.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $41,565.13 for the trial, in addition to $40,000 previously awarded for a summary judgment motion.

The court found the amount claimed to be fair and reasonable, considering the principle of indemnity, the large amount at issue ($2.5 million), and the complexity of the issues.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the total costs of $81,565.13.

This case involved a summary trial concerning claims of breach of contract, misrepresentation, breach of the duty of good faith, unjust enrichment, and loss of opportunity.

The plaintiff, a marketing and communications company, alleged that the defendant, an AI software developer, misled it into believing a long-term business relationship with equity sharing or revenue sharing would be established, inducing the plaintiff to share contacts and promote the defendant's technology.

The defendant contended that only ad hoc commission agreements were ever finalized.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims, finding no binding long-term agreement, no actionable misrepresentation, no breach of the duty of good faith, and no unjust enrichment, largely based on credibility findings favoring the defendant's representatives and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's own contemporaneous communications.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith.

The dispute centered on whether the parties had reached oral agreements beyond an initial commission fee arrangement for a long-term business relationship involving artificial intelligence technology.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed due to significant credibility disputes between the key witnesses.

The court declined to use its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1) because doing so risked inconsistent findings of fact at the subsequent trial.