breach of contract action

In a breach of contract action, a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. The Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, California, declined to dismiss a juror or to grant a new trial based on alleged misconduct. Defendant appealed.

 

Break News Russia & Ukraine: Why is Russia attacking Ukraine

During argument, plaintiff's counsel told the jury it could reject the entire testimony of a witness if it determined that the witness had been willfully false in one material aspect of the testimony. A juror expressed her agreement by clapping her hands. The reviewing court held that the insignificant infraction did not prevent either party from having a fair trial and did not provide a basis for setting aside the verdict. The clapping was technical misconduct because it was tantamount to the formation of an opinion as to the credibility of a witness, but it was not prejudicial. This momentary display occurred after all the evidence had been heard and the closing arguments were nearly completed. The applause, by itself, did not indicate that the juror had unfairly pre-judged the witnesses'credibility or that she was unwilling to consider other jurors points of view. Other jurors testified that they recalled the clapping but not the statement that preceded it. The court also found that no prejudice resulted when, during deliberations, the same juror injected technical knowledge into the deliberations. The court affirmed the judgment.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff partners in a winery appealed the orders from the Superior Court of San Joaquin County (California), which set aside an order that denied a change of venue and granted a change of venue upon the motion of defendant partners in a packing company. Plaintiffs had filed an action to recover damages for a breach of contract for failure of defendants to deliver goods under the contract.

Overview

By a written contract plaintiffs purchased grapes from defendants for the purpose of making wine or other products at a set price. The contract was written by a business litigation lawyer in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants agreed to deliver the grapes to a winery. Defendants failed to deliver the requisite amount of grapes, so plaintiffs filed suit in the county where the grapes were to be delivered. The court held that said county was an appropriate venue in which to file the suit. Where the contract provided that defendants were to deliver the grapes to the winery, the county of the delivery destination was an appropriate county in which to file. Plaintiffs could also have filed in the county where the contract was entered into and the county where defendants, or any one defendant, resided. But, the trial court had no discretion to change the place of trial on account of the mere residence of one defendant, where the case was properly filed in an appropriate county. Because the price per ton to be paid "roadside" was clearly a separate and distinct contract requirement from the requirement to deliver the grapes at the winery, both provisions had to be given effect, such that delivery was held to be to the county of the winery.

Outcome

The court reversed the trial court's orders.