Mobile Phone Maker Sues T-Mobile for Reneging on Device Order

T-Mobile breached its contractual obligations to Irvine, California-based mobile device maker Unimax by failing to accept delivery of nearly half a million devices, alleged Unimax's fraud complaint Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-01830) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.

Unimax and T-Mobile entered into a contractual master agreement May 28, 2021, for the development, manufacturing, shipping, delivery and purchase of Unimax mobile devices, said the complaint. Under the contract, T-Mobile sent purchase orders (POs) for 951,720 U696CL mobile devices in May, for 524,160 devices from May to October and for 427,500 devices in November, it said. The following May, T-Mobile informed Unimax that under an OEM addendum to the master agreement, it had the contractual right to cancel its orders for 427,500 devices, “despite making representations it would accept delivery,” said the complaint.

T-Mobile maintains it has no contractual obligation to compensate Unimax for any of the 427,500 devices it represented it would accept “and that it required Unimax to reflash, conduct a RCA on, and perform extensive hardware certifications on that were approved and passed by T-Mobile,” the complaint said.

Unimax seeks declaratory judgment on whether the cancellation of POs is enforceable according to the addendum and whether each PO that T-Mobile canceled amounts to a breach of a contractual purchase order “that it has an obligation to pay,” said the complaint.

The plaintiff seeks a judgment on whether terms of the master agreement and its addendums “are unconscionable and/or illusory to the extent it releases T-Mobile from its contractual and tortious damages and effectively imposes no contractual duty to engage in good faith and fair dealing” with its suppliers, it said.

The plaintiff claims breach of contract against T-Mobile for refusing to accept delivery of the mobile devices and to compensate Unimax for its contractual price of $61.40 for 427,500 units. It seeks performance and compensation for actual and consequential damages and costs.

Unimax also claims intentional interference with prospective economic advantage/inducing breach of contract, said the complaint. At the time T-Mobile issued POs with Unimax, T-Mobile had knowledge the plaintiff had a business relationship with its supplier, Great Talent, and potential future dealings with Great Talent related to the development and manufacturing phones for Unimax. Based on assurances it would accept the 427,500 devices, Unimax owes Great Talent “millions of dollars for the manufacturing, development and continued storage” of the devices, it said.

On information and belief, T-Mobile “intentionally induced and/or caused the termination of the business relationship and/or expectancy between Unimax and Great Talent,” the complaint said. Unimax also asserts a claim of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, alleging its representative, Casey Ryan, “falsely represented that T-Mobile would accept delivery of 427,500 Unimax U696CL mobile devices it issued POs for.”

Unicom seeks an award and entry of judgment in favor of Unimax vs. T-Mobile for actual and consequential damages “proximately caused by T-Mobile’s breach of contract and unlawful conduct,” other non-economic damages available and attorneys’ fees and costs, the complaint said. T-Mobile had "nothing to add at this time," a spokesperson emailed Wednesday.