A Tuesday complaint filed in the District of Utah, Central Division by plaintiff Home View Technologies, Inc., doing business under the name LiveView Technologies (LVT), sought relief from BMMPR Inc. for breach of contract. LVT seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief for BMMPR’s supposed acts and omissions causing the parties’ security system purchase agreement to fail.
LVT is a Utah corporation based in Orem, in the business of video surveillance and security solutions. One of LVT’s main revenue streams comes from “Mobile Solar Security Trailers, which are portable trailers consisting of a combination of solar panels, battery packs, two-way speakers, floodlights, and its cutting-edge security cameras fixed to expandable towers,” (LVT trailers), that clients rent and buy them from LVT to surveil places like construction sites and parking lots. BMMPR is a California corporation based in San Diego, that, according to the complaint, represented to LVT that it could supply it with a security system to prevent interference with and damage to LVT trailers.
The complaint states that the parties entered into a purchase agreement on Apr. 16, whereby, once BMMPR had delivered a satisfactory proof of concept and LVT had given its “written, signed approval,” a three phase payment plan would commence, culminating with the delivery of BMMPR’s security products to LVT. The filing states that “LVT dutifully performed its obligations under the Purchase Agreement by, among other things, providing BMMPR with a fully equipped LVT Trailer (valued at over $25,000) to enable BMMPR to create its proof of concept for LVT’s review and approval.”
Reportedly, BMMPR showed LVT its proof of concept in June, but LVT was dissatisfied with the result because the security system only protected part of the LVT trailer, not the entire structure. Despite LVT’s discontent, BMMPR issued a $56,000 invoice to LVT on Jul. 10 for BMMPR’s expenditures in developing the system, the complaint explains.
BMMPR then allegedly came back to LVT with a revised proposal that cost more than double the purchase price of the original estimate. Reportedly, discussions ensued, wherein LVT expressed disinterest in the improved system because of its cost but was willing to negotiate with BMMPR if it could integrate certain features into the first version of its product.
Allegedly, BMMPR then returned to LVT with a third proposal at an even higher price, which LVT declined given the “unreasonable increases in price.” LVT determined BMMPR to be in material breach of their agreement and notified the company that it would terminate the deal on Sept. 15, the complaint reported.
Thereafter, BMMPR invoiced LVT for $165,000, due immediately. The termination invoice included a cancellation fee of $50,000, a non-itemized fee for time and materials of $110,000, and a $5,000 credit redeemable only if LVT elected to leave its trailer in BMMPR’s possession.
LVT’s suit contends that BMMPR breached their agreement by demanding payment of the two invoices, and by refusing to return its LVT trailer unless the foregoing bills were paid. In turn, LVT seeks monetary damages for BMMPR’s breach of contract, and requests a declaratory judgment stating that “(i) LVT does not owe any monies under the Purchase Agreement to BMMPR, including, but not limited to, amounts BMMPR seeks to collect from LVT under the First Invoice or the Termination Invoice, and (ii) LVT is entitled to return of the LVT Demo Trailer from BMMPR.”
Parsons Behle & Latimer represented Home View Technologies, Inc.
