As Hooban explains, it seems that the legal trigger for royalty allocation – “if the provisions of the. treaty. allow at least one party to recover legal fees” – to a party and not just to the litigation. In this context, it appears that the law refers to the contracting parties and their contractual provisions in respect of legal fees. Finally, the “contract provisions” would not apply to a single party that is not mentioned in the treaty. Hooban being considered a foreigner to the distribution contract, he insists that the status is not involved and that Unicity is not entitled to any fees under its rules. 1 Roger Hooban sued Unicity International for breach of a distribution agreement. The District Court issued a summary judgment against Unicity, in which it stated that Hooban was not a party to the agreement and that he could not appear for its application. Unicity then filed an application for legal fees under the Utah Mutual Lawyer`s Fees Act, Utah Code Section 78B-5-826.1.
The Bezirksgericht rejected the application on the grounds that section 826 did not apply, hooban not participating in the underlying contract. Unicity appealed and the Court of Appeal set aside our opinion in Bilanzich v. Lonetti, 2007 UT 26, 160 P.3d 1041, to dictate the awarding of taxes in the event of a dispute, on the basis of a written contract in which the contract allows at least one party to the dispute to recover costs. 6 Hooban then filed this complaint. His complaint was aimed at enforcing the distribution agreement, including compensating Hooban`s non-recognition and compensation as a distributor. It also sought legal fees under a provision of the contract, under which “in the event of a dispute, the costs of the other party are removed from office.” If you use this site, you are responsible for maintaining the privacy of your account and password and restricting access to your computer, and you agree to take responsibility for all activities that take place under your account or password. You must not transfer or transfer your account to another person or entity. You acknowledge that Unicity is not responsible for third-party access to your account based on the theft or misappropriation of your account information. Unicity and its employees reserve the right to refuse or terminate the service at their discretion, to terminate accounts or to delete or modify content.
25 Unicity, however, offers an alternative formulation. Unicity asks us to consider whether the contract “allows at least one party to recover legal fees” as part of a hypothetical alternative in which the case was resolved in the other direction. Under this approach, Unicity states that if Hooban`s lawsuit had been successful, it would have been considered a “party” to the distribution agreement and that, in that case, the contract would have “allowed at least some party to recover legal fees.” Unicity therefore asserts a right to recover royalties under the Act if the provisions of the underlying contract would allow at least one party to recover costs if it had imposed itself in the contract appeal. 4 In 1994, Unicity entered into a distribution agreement with a company called H-H Network Services. As part of this agreement, H-H accepted guidelines and procedures that limited, among other things, the right of H-H to transfer or transfer its distribution company to a third party, ensuring Unicity a “first offer” right – a right to acquire the distribution instead of transferring it to a third party. 7 The District Court granted Unicity`s request for summary judgment and found that Hooban had not participated in the distribution agreement and therefore had no right to sue under its terms.