What is a breach of contract?

Whether it is written, oral, or implied, the elements for breach of contract are:

  1. parties capable of contracting,
  2. mutual consent,
  3. a lawful object,
  4. sufficient cause or consideration,
  5. plaintiff’s performance or excuse for failure to perform,
  6. defendant’s breach, and
  7. damages.

Civil Code §§ 1550, 1605; Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 437, 453; Gomez v. Lincare, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 508, 525.

“[E]very contract for service has an implicit term to perform the service in a competent and reasonable manner.” N.A. Chemical Co. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, 774.

“A negligent failure to do so may be both a breach of contract and a tort.” Id. citing Perry v. Robertson (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 333, 340.

A written contract must be pled verbatim in the body of the complaint, be attached to the complaint and incorporated by reference, or be pled according to its legal effect. Bowden v. Robinson (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 705, 718.

Useful Resources for Breach of Contract – General

Recent Rulings on Breach of Contract – General

226-250 of 10000 results

PIROMALLO VS GALLO

The court finds the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract – a contract [Cplt. ¶¶ 6, 9, 11, 12, 22], Plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance [Cplt. ¶ 23], Defendants' breach [Cplt. ¶¶ 15, 18, 18, 20, 24] and damages [Cplt. ¶ 25]. See, Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388. The court is not persuaded by Defendants' arguments as to the elements necessary for establishing a partnership.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

ONTIUM CORP. VS PHOENIX INVENTORS

As the project dragged on and became more time-consuming and expensive than anticipated, the relationship soured, the work went unfinished, and breakdown occurred that led to the instant lawsuit wherein Plaintiff, who purchased the services, is suing for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty to perform with reasonable care, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Defendant is currently moving to quash the service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ADELA ULLOA VS NANCY EPAO CIHLAR

(“Obagi”) for invasion of privacy, defamation, breach of contract, and related causes of action. On February 15, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed OLG from the action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

INHALE INC VS BAHARI BROTHERS LLC

The demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract is overruled. Plaintiff specifically refers to exhibit A as the contract breached. The lease defines the commencement date as July 8, 2016, not November 2016, as defendant suggests. Possession was to be within 180 days of the commencement date. Thus, plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a valid breach of contract claim for failing to deliver possession.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RITA HOLLYWOOD SKYLINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS EMC PARTNERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

procedural history Hollywood Skyline filed the original Complaint on May 26, 2020, alleging two causes of action: Declaratory Relief Breach of Contract On June 26, 2020, EMC filed a Cross-Complaint (“XC”), alleging five causes of action: Breach of Contract Fraud Negligent Misrepresentation Conspiracy Declaratory Relief On December 7, 2020, Rita Hollywood and Regency Sponsor filed the instant Motion to Seal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PIROMALLO VS GALLO

The court finds the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract – a contract [Cplt. ¶¶ 6, 9, 11, 12, 22], Plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance [Cplt. ¶ 23], Defendants' breach [Cplt. ¶¶ 15, 18, 18, 20, 24] and damages [Cplt. ¶ 25]. See, Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388. The court is not persuaded by Defendants' arguments as to the elements necessary for establishing a partnership.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

NOVEY VS WAITE HEARING RE: DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF CLIFFORD NOVEY BY ESTADOS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND

This argument fails because “the same wrongful act may constitute both a breach of contract and an invasion of an interest protected by the law of torts." (See North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, 771-774 [when a contract for the performance of services has been alleged, a failure to carry out the contract in a reasonable and professional manner can constitute both a breach of contract and negligence].) Novey has alleged that he suffered property damage.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

EASTERN FUNDING LLC, ET AL. VS WALLY WASH LAUNDRY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

.: 20CMCV00281 Matter on calendar for: Applications for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030) Tentative ruling: Background This is a breach of contract case. Defendant Wally Wash Laundry, LLC entered into a Secured Promissory Note and Agreement with Plaintiff Eastern Funding LLC on September 21, 2017 for a loan in the amount of $185,000.00. Defendant Austin Matthew Hajjar executed an irrevocable guaranty for the agreement on September 21, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ISLAND ENTERRPRISES INC ET AL VS CITY OF AVALON ET AL

Breach of Contract 2. Fraud 3. Discrimination in Violation of the Express Mandatory Provisions of the State of California Tide Lands Grant to the City of Avalon Dated August 4, 1943 4. Violation of Gov’t Code §53803 5. Failure to Comply with CPUC Vessel Common Carrier Permit 6. Declaratory Relief 7. Injunctive Relief 8. Violation of the Avalon Municipal Code After hearing on demurrer, the Court struck the second cause of action for fraud. The other seven causes of action remain operative.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

SU YANG, ET AL. VS JDW ASSOCIATION, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;, ET AL.

Specifically, Plaintiffs propose to: (1) add a cause of action for contractual breach of the implied warranty of habitability against all Defendants; (2) add a cause of action for unlawful and unfair business practices against all Defendants; (3) add a cause of action for breach of contract; (4) add a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) remove the cause of action for tortious breach of the implied warranty of habitability against the Park Defendants; (6) remove the cause of

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ROMEX TEXTILES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SEAMLESS LAND, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Probable Validity of Plaintiff’s Claims The application is based on a claim for breach of contract. To establish a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove: (1) existence of a contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach of the contract; and (4) damages incurred by plaintiff as a result of the breach. (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1367.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SONY ELECTRONICS INC. VS PHOENIX LIGHTS DISTRIBUTION, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Breach of Contract; Open Book Account; Account Stated; and Reasonable Value. On December 15, 2020, default was entered as to Defendant Phoenix Lights Distribution, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant”). On the same day, Plaintiff dismissed Does 1 through 10 without prejudice. Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $73,445.70 consisting of $53,550.00 in damages, $19,380.70 in prejudgment interest, and $515.00 in costs.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MATTER OF STARR LIVING TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Internal Affairs, Accounting, Breach of Contract (UPDATED 1/5/2021) Appearances required. An objection was filed on December 31, 2020 placing this matter at issue. Parties must come prepared to set the matter for evidentiary hearing and discuss other issues that will be raised in a Case Management Style environment. Any respondent that has not otherwise objected must file a written objection before the next hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

MATTER OF STARR LIVING TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Internal Affairs, Accounting, Breach of Contract Appearances required. Respondents must file a written objection before the hearing. The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver. The following must be submitted: Proposed Order (Local Rule, 1731.) – Petitioner must submit a proposed order outlining the exact relief requested in the petition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

EDMUNDO SILVA RODRIGUEZ VS WILBERT MARTINEZ, ET AL.

Breach of Contract Breach of contract requires: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach (or anticipatory breach); and (4) resulting damage. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. N. Y. Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) Here, Plaintiff pleads he entered into a written agreement with Defendants whereby the parties created a business partnership. (Complaint, p. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

On January 5, 2021, the Court granted Walton leave to file a TACC to add a breach of contract claim against Berendos. Accordingly, there remains a potential basis for Berendos’ liability to Walton, and in turn, a basis for subrogation and indemnification. Berendos also argues for the first time in its reply that Liberty’s FAC fails to satisfy all of the elements of equitable subrogation. (Reply at p. 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION VS ALTARAY, LLC, A UTAH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA ALTARAY SOLAR, ET AL.

Discussion Plaintiff moves the court for an order severing the first through fourth actions (i.e., for Breach of Contract, Materials Furnished, Open Book Account and Account Stated, respectively) from the fifth and sixth causes of action (i.e., for Breach of Personal Guaranty and Conversion, respectively) and entering a judgment by default against Altaray.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC

This argument is entirely misplaced, as Plaintiff does not allege breach of contract or seek remedies under the title policy itself. What Plaintiff alleges is that Defendants negligently recorded the Balboa DOT. A title insurance company can be liable to a third party for slander of title, even if there were no direct dealings with that party.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

NIRANJAN RAY VS MOHAMMED SALEEM URSANI

Breach of Contract; 2. Fraud; 3. Common Counts. Defendant moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, for an order granting summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of issues in favor of Defendant against Plaintiff. The Court notes that, while Defendant moved, alternatively, for summary adjudication, Defendant failed to comply with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROBERT MOYNIHAN, ET AL. VS DAVID PERKAL, ET AL.

On March 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Breach of Contract, Common Counts (second through sixth causes of action), and Unjust Enrichment. On April 3, 2018, David Perkal answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Monica Perkal for Implied Indemnity, Comparative Indemnity, Declaratory Relief, Equitable Indemnity, and Contribution. On March 29, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed Monica Perkal without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

AZOOCA INC VS FOXLINK INTERNATIONAL INC

(“Defendant”) alleging breach of contract, fraud, and negligent interference with prospective economic benefit. No one appeared for the case management conference on October 23, 2017, so the Court set an order to show cause re: dismissal and/or sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to appear and failure to file a proof of service of the summons and complaint. At the November 22, 2017 OSC, Plaintiff again failed to appear or file a proof of service. The Court therefore dismissed the action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DR JERROLD S DREYER MD ET AL VS JM CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC E

The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges seven causes of action for: 1) breach of fiduciary duty; 2) breach of contract; 3) breach of contract; 4) money had and received; 5) fraud and deceit; 6) constructive trust; and 7) accounting. Plaintiffs’ action arises from a series of loan agreements related to the funding of several motion picture projects. On April 8, 2020, Macias initiated a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Williams, J.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GEORGE STEPHAN, ET AL. VS LISA ANN BARKETT, ET AL.

.: 18STCV08722 Hearing Date: January 6, 2021 [TENTATIVE] order RE: cross-defendant DIANE Malcoun’s demurrer to lisa barkett’s cross-complaint Procedural Background On December 14, 2018, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants George Stephan (“George”)[1] and Debra Stephan (“Debra”) initiated the instant action for fraud and breach of contract.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FORMOSA FABRIC INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS OMID LAVI, ET AL.

The FACC alleges sixteen causes of action as follows: (1) breach of contract against Lim, (2) breach of contract against Formosa, (3) breach of contract against Formosa, (4) breach of implied warranty against Formosa, (5) misappropriation of trade secrets against all cross-defendants, (6) tortious interference with contract against Formosa and Bin Liu, (7) tortious interference with prospective economic relations against all cross-defendants, (8) violation of California Uniform Trade Secret Act against all cross-defendants

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

U.S. FOODS VS CESAR'S COFFEE, INC., ET AL.

(“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, open book account, account stated, reasonable value, and breach of guaranty against Defendants Cesar’s Coffee, Inc. dba Joni’s Coffee Roasting Café (“Cesar’s Coffee”) and Julie Jungwirth (“Julie”) (collectively, “Defendants”). A non-jury trial was scheduled for February 4, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.