AED, Inc. v. KDC Investments, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of a party against whom breach of contract was claimed because the contract was illegal and therefore void.
• affirming the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of a party against whom breach of contract was claimed because the contract was illegal and therefore void.
• conducting the analysis of Idaho law and concluding that a contract entered into by an unlicensed contractor is an unenforceable “illegal contract” regardless of whether the contractor later obtained a license after the contract was signed
• “[I]f an appellant fails to contest all of the grounds upon which a district court based its grant of summary judgment, the judgment must be affirmed.”
• “[I]f AED had started performing its obligations under the contract prior to KDC's termination, it may have been able to recover under an unjust enrichment theory, but in the absence of performance, AED is not entitled to recover.”
• “[I]f AED had started performing its obligations under the contract prior to KDC's termination, it may have been able to recover under an unjust enrichment theory, but in the absence of performance, AED is not entitled to recover.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).