Gadre v. Hexanika, Inc.

Background

Makarand Gadre provided software-consulting services to Hexanika from January 2015 through May 2021. The parties entered into agreements in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2020, all governed by New York law. Gadre claimed that Hexanika failed to pay $120,500 in compensation. Hexanika argued that Gadre’s work was deficient and asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The case was decided after a one-day bench trial, meaning the judge—not a jury—determined the facts and the law. The court found that Gadre adequately performed his consulting work. It also found that Hexanika’s December 2020 repayment schedule was the best evidence of the total unpaid compensation and that Gadre never received the $120,500 payment.

Gadre’s Claims

The court found that Gadre proved the elements of breach of contract for the 2015, 2018, and 2020 agreements: the agreements existed, Gadre adequately performed, Hexanika breached them by failing to pay, and Gadre suffered damages.

The 2017 agreement differed because it made Hexanika’s receipt of payment from a client a condition that had to occur before Hexanika’s payment obligation arose. Gadre did not present credible evidence that Hexanika received payment from a client for his services. The court therefore found in favor of Hexanika on the breach-of-contract claim concerning the 2017 agreement. The unpaid balance attributed to that agreement was $18,500, which the court deducted from the $120,500 total.

The court dismissed Gadre’s promissory-estoppel claim because he identified no duty that Hexanika owed him independently of the consulting agreements. In the court’s view, that claim duplicated his contract claim.

Hexanika’s Counterclaims

The court found in favor of Gadre on Hexanika’s counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It found that Gadre adequately performed the services required by the agreements and had not breached them. For the same reasons, the court found that Hexanika did not prove that Gadre was unjustly enriched.

Disposition

The court found that Gadre established his breach-of-contract claim as to the 2015, 2018, and 2020 agreements, but failed to establish that claim as to the 2017 agreement or his promissory-estoppel claim. It also found that Hexanika failed to establish either counterclaim.

Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Gadre and against Hexanika for $102,000, plus prejudgment interest at 9 percent per year calculated from December 31, 2020, through the date of judgment. The court also directed the Clerk to close the case after judgment was entered.