Procedural Posture

Procedural Posture

Appellant grower sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County (California), which entered a judgment in favor or respondent assignee in an action for breach of a contract to provide raisin grapes.

Overview

The assignee of a fruit packing company brought the action against the grower to recover damages for the grower's refusal to deliver the raisin grapes pursuant to a written agreement. The superior court entered a judgment in favor of the assignee. On review, the court reversed. The grower alleged that the contract between the fruit company and himself was procured by fraud. Is It Illegal define? If something is illegal, the law says that it is not allowed. It is illegal to intercept radio messages. Birth control was illegal there until 1978. The grower sought to introduce evidence that the agent for the packing company advised the grower that he would receive an advance payment. The superior court refused to admit such evidence. The court noted that proof of a contemporaneous or prior oral agreement could not detract from the terms of a contract in writing. The rule could not be avoided by showing that the promise outside the writing had been broken; such breach in itself did not constitute fraud. But a promise made without any intention of performing it was one of the forms of actual fraud. Thus, if the agent and the packing company had no intention of making the advance, actual fraud existed and the evidence was admissible.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment of the superior court.

Procedural Posture

Procedural Posture

Defendants, three companies and their owners, appealed an order from the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which denied pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (c), their motions to compel arbitration of contract and tort claims asserted by plaintiffs, investors in the companies' real estate investment funds.

Overview

The complaint alleged that the companies had mismanaged six funds. Some investors put their money into just one fund, while others invested in multiple funds, and each fund had different types of investments. The trial court found that there was a possibility of inconsistent rulings because some of the investment options did not have arbitration provisions in the governing documents. The companies did not request a statement of decision under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 632, 1291. Embezzlement define as a white-collar crime that takes place when an individual entrusted with property, money, or another asset dishonestly appropriates. The court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., did not apply because the arbitration provision was specific enough to show that the parties intended to be bound by California's procedural rules on arbitration. The record lacked substantial evidence to support implied findings that each of the conditions required to apply the third-party litigation exception of § 1281.2, subd. (c), had been satisfied on each motion. Although inconsistent rulings on common issues might occur if investors who chose different options within the same fund were alleging misconduct relating to the management of the same property, the evidence was insufficient to show that this was indeed the situation.

Outcome

The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Lawyer

Petitioners, husband and wife, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles (California), entered in favor of respondents, stepparents and half-brother, in a property agreement dispute. In addition, petitioners appealed from an order imposing sanctions pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.5.

Overview

Petitioners, husband and wife, were faced with the foreclosure of a trust deed on real property they owned. Respondent stepparents agreed to provide the sums required to avoid foreclosure on the property. They entered into a partnership agreement that included the bank to this effect. Subsequently, petitioners repudiated respondents' supposed ownership interest in the property, ceased to pay them any share of the profits from the building, and excluded them from its management. If you want t get married you should first know How to Get Married? In Californa. The issue was the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to bringing tort cause of action in context of commercial contracts. The court affirmed trial court's judgment. The court held that a contracting party seeking to avoid all liability on a meritorious contract claim by adopting a "stonewall" position without probable cause and with no belief in the existence of a defense could be subject to tort liability, including punitive damages.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment ruling in favor of respondent stepparents. The court held that a contracting party seeking to avoid all liability on a contract claim by adopting a "stonewall" position without probable cause and with no belief in the existence of a defense could be subject to tort liability.

San Diego Lawyers

Defendants, a trust company, the copartners, and a litigant, appealed a decision from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered judgment for plaintiff in her action to recover the sum of $ 1,000 alleged to be due on a contract to reimburse, and repay plaintiff payments made by her upon the purchase of real estate. Plaintiff sought a decree to sell the property and apply the proceeds to the payment of the amount due.

The complaint alleged plaintiff agreed to purchase from the company certain lots. She entered into seven contracts and made certain payments thereon, amounting to $ 1,000. The company held the title to the lots in trust for plaintiff and other defendants named. The litigant acquired all equitable rights of all other persons, except plaintiff, in the lots mentioned. What Is Embezzlement? Embezzlement is the act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, either to be held or to be used for specific purposes. Plaintiff demanded a rescission of the contract of sale on the ground there had been misrepresentations made. The litigant agreed he would procure the cancellation of the contracts of sale. By this agreement, plaintiff was to be reimbursed for her payments. When the parties were unable to agree on the valuation of the lots, a new agreement was entered into between the copartners, the litigant and plaintiff. The court held that: (1) the copartners were liable to plaintiff for the $ 1,000 on their promise to repay her, on behalf of themselves and their codefendant, the litigant, in the agreement entered into by the parties; and (2) there was no reason to sustain defendants' contention that the trial court could not foreclose the lien or trust for the purpose of applying the proceeds of sale upon the indebtedness.

The court affirmed the judgment.