Procedural Posture

Defendant purchaser sought review of a judgment and the subsequent denial of a motion for a new trial in favor of plaintiff lumber vendor in a breach of contract suit in the Superior Court of Mendocino County (California).

 

Overview

The purchaser appealed a judgment in favor of the lumber vendor in a breach of contract suit, contending a buyer against whom a judgment was also entered was not his agent. The court observed that the buyer did not appeal the judgment and it appeared from the record below that all the parties realized that in order to hold the purchaser liable, the lumber vendor had to show that the buyer was the purchaser's agent. The court explained that this was the case because there was no evidence that any business relationship existed between the buyer and the purchaser unless it was an agency. The court reversed the judgment, concluding because the lumber vendor did not make an election of whether to proceed against the principal or the buyer as an agent, it was unclear from the findings if the lower court believed an agency existed or whether the lower court found that such a relationship existed that would have justified entry of judgment against both the buyer and purchaser on a joint and several liability theory. The court found that if the judgment was based upon joint and several liability, the evidence was inconsistent with either the findings or the judgment.

 

Outcome: caci battery

The court reversed the judgment, which held the purchaser liable to the lumber vendor in a breach of contract suit. The matter was remanded to the trial court with instructions that it may settle the issues of fact presented and render judgment accordingly. The purported appeal of the denial of a new trial was also dismissed.

 

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff seller sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) in favor of the seller, in the seller's action against the buyer for goods sold and delivered and for damages for breach of contract. Specifically, the seller challenged the trial court's refusal to grant the seller damages for the buyer's failure to purchase certain goods, as provided for under a sales agreement.

 

Overview

The seller entered into an agreement with the buyer wherein the seller was to have sold a certain amount of cloth to the buyer for a set price. In the first count of the complaint, the seller claimed that he delivered part of the cloth to the buyer, but that the buyer failed to pay the balance. In his second count, the seller claimed that the buyer refused to purchase other material that was offered by the seller, in violation of the sales agreement. The trial court found that the seller offered to deliver the additional material, pursuant to the agreement, and that the buyer refused to purchase the material, in violation of the agreement. The trial court also found, however, that the seller did not suffer any damages as a result and was not, therefore, entitled to recover damages from the buyer. The court ruled that the trial court's findings were so inconsistent as to leave doubt as to their meaning. Because the appeal was from the judgment-roll, the court ruled that it could not have accounted for the inconsistency. As such, the court held that the portion of the trial court's judgment relating to the second count of the complaint was subject to a reversal and a remand.

 

Outcome

The court reversed the portion of the trial court's judgment as to the second count of the complaint, and the court remanded the matter to the trial court for a proper finding as to damages. The court affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment.