Court hears contract and unjust‑enrichment dispute between Co Diagnostics and Hukui; parties contest meeting‑minutes and damages

With that we will call the second case to order; this is the case of Co Diagnostics versus Hukui.

John Van Levensals, counsel for Hukui, argued the district court erred by granting summary judgment for Co Diagnostics. Van Levensals said the record — especially March 2020 meeting minutes and letters of authorization — showed the parties had an understanding about compensation when end customers purchased test kits directly, and that Hukui was entitled to at least a method for calculating commissions. He told the panel that, if the jury credited his evidence, the delta between distributor and wholesale pricing created an objectively measurable commission and that disputed factual inferences should be tried, not resolved on summary judgment.

Mark Morris, arguing for Co Diagnostics, told the court the record showed only an "agreement to discuss pricing later" and that Hukui was seeking "money for nothing" for mere introductions. Morris said Intelligent Solutions was an independent sales force, not a captive subdistributor, and that Co Diagnostics had separate relationships and pricing with different purchasers. He urged the court to affirm the trial judge's conclusion that the minutes did not establish a binding agreement on commission or provide admissible evidence of the benefit amount needed to support unjust enrichment.

The parties debated discrete factual points the trial court relied on: whether the distributor price was $6 per kit and whether the meeting minutes’ references to a $7 wholesale price established a $1 per‑kit commission. Van Levensals cited record testimony and argued a reasonable jury could find a commission measure; Co Diagnostics disputed the characterization and said summary judgment was appropriate because the minutes and testimony show open terms that must be resolved at trial.

Hukui also pressed a claim for tortious interference with economic relations, alleging Co Diagnostics induced Intelligent Solutions to cut Hukui out of sales. Van Levensals said Co Diagnostics represented (incorrectly, he charged) that internal traceability or regulatory policies required direct dealing with Intelligent Solutions; Co Diagnostics answered that any internal policy or business decision is not independently tortious and that Efficient‑breach concerns do not render otherwise lawful commercial choices actionable absent independently tortious conduct.

On alternative claims, the parties discussed promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. Van Levensals said an unjust‑enrichment claim could succeed even if the court found no enforceable contract because Co Diagnostics received measurable benefits from introductions that Hukui supplied; Co Diagnostics answered that the record lacked admissible evidence of the benefit amount or profit margin necessary for a jury to award damages.

After questioning and extended argument the panel submitted the case for decision. The court said it would try to issue a decision as promptly as possible.