Procedural Posture: job description template

Defendants, a contractor and his sureties, sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered judgment in favor of plaintiff property owner in the owner's action to recover damages for the contractor's delay in the completion of a building and compensation for attorney's fees incurred in defending actions brought to foreclose liens.

Overview

The owner entered into a contract with the contractor for the construction of a building on his property. The contractor and his sureties executed a bond to the owner that released the owner from all liens that might accrue from the performance of the contract. The contractor did not finish the contract and owner brought an action to recover for the damages that resulted in the delay in completion of the building and for attorney's fees that accrued in defending foreclosure of liens. Judgment was entered in favor of the owner. On appeal, the court stated that the evidence sustained the trial court's finding that the owner was the owner of the land. The defendants were further estopped from denying the owner's ownership of the property because the owner entered into the contract as owner, expended his money as owner for the building, and the giving of the bond was part of the inducement for him entering into the contract. There was nothing in the facts shown which operated to have exonerated the sureties from the obligations of their bond. The amount paid the attorneys for their services was a direct proximate damage that resulted from the contractor's breach of his contract.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff purchaser appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County (California), which dismissed on statute of frauds grounds the purchaser's complaint alleging breach of contract by defendants, partnership, corporation, and individual.

Overview

The purchaser alleged that it entered into an oral agreement with the individual, as the representative for the partnership and the corporation, for the purchase of almonds. The purchaser further alleged that it had made similar purchases for a period of two years prior to the transaction in question. Although the purchaser mailed a confirmation, defendants failed to recognize the agreement, repudiated the oral contract, and refused to deliver the almonds. In dismissing the complaint, the trial court found that the value of the almonds was more than $ 500 and no memorandum of the alleged sale was signed by any of the defendants. Under the statute of frauds, Cal. Civ. Code § 1724(1), the contract was unenforceable. The court affirmed. The amended complaint did not allege sufficient facts to show that defendants waived their rights under the provisions of the statute of frauds or to show that they were estopped to rely on those provisions. In dismissing the amended complaint, the trial court properly considered the written confirmation that the purchase had set out in the original complaint. The "confirmation" was simply an order that was not accepted by defendants.

Outcome

The court affirmed the dismissal of the purchaser's complaint alleging breach of contract by defendants.