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

26-50 of 10000 results

AMERICA CHUNG NAM LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS LI 'MICHAEL' DU

The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging causes of action for (1) misappropriation of trade secrets, (2) breach of duty of loyalty/violation of Labor Code section 2863, and (3) breach of contract. The verified FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. ACN exports recovered fiber sources to paper mills in the People’s Republic of China (“China”) and other nations where they can be converted into fiberboard, cardboard, and packaging.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

YANG LAW, P.C. VS ROYA ANSARI

The Court notes that Yang Law does not demur to the 1st (legal malpractice) and 3rd (breach of contract) causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AKA SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP VS LUCERO MIRAMONTES, ET AL.

The Cross-Complaint asserts causes of action for: Breach of Contract; Fraud and Deceit; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint for Interpleader (“SAC”). Defendant Powers (hereinafter “Defendant”) now demurs to the SAC on the ground that it fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

SHAUNA CHAPPELLE VS RONALD LANG, DR., ET AL.

On January 28, 2019 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants for assault, oppression, deceit/fraud, false imprisonment, IIED, and breach of contract. On February 26, 2019 Plaintiff filed a one-page Second Amended Complaint, which omitted all the facts alleged previously in the FAC. On April 25, 2019, the court sustained Defendant Lang’s demurrer and granted his motion to strike. The court granted Plaintiff leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CALIMA ELECTRIC, INC. VS DAVID BRIAN SANDERS INTERIOR DESIGN, INC.

Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 870.) 1st Cause of Action for Breach of Contract A cause of action for breach of contract must plead the contract, plaintiff’s performance or excuse for non-performance, defendant’s breach, and damage to plaintiff therefrom. (Acoustics, Inc. v. Trepte Constr. Co. (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 887, 913.) A written contract can be pleaded by alleging its making and attaching a copy to the complaint or by alleging the making and the substance of the relevant terms.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

KIMBERLY A. ZAMBELL VS CHARLES E. HILL, AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY

On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Hill and all persons unknown claiming any interest in the property named as Does 1-100 for: Partition of Personal Property Breach of Contract A Case Management Conference is set for January 19, 2021. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ALINE THIVIERGE VS LANCE CLAERY

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the elements of a breach of contract cause of action have not been adequately alleged. Defendant Lance Claery’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

FUEL INJECTION TECHNOLOGY INC VS FARRELL

Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (TAC) against Farrell and Hyperfuel Systems, Inc. on October 28, 2020, which alleges the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Breach of Contract – Sale of Goods; (3) Recovery of Statutory Penalty of Usurious Interest Payments; (4) Breach of Contract – Automobile Agreement; and (5) Conversion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

COLUMBIA ENTERPRISES, LLC VS T.M. COBB COMPANY

Motion is Granted on causes of action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation, and Denied for causes of action for Breach of Contract and Fraudulent Concealment. On the Breach cause of action, Columbia did not seek immediate review of the court’s Ruling sustaining the Demurrer without Leave, nor was this issue raised on Appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

Berendos seeks to add causes of action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IRINA MATEVOSYAN VS TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on October 22, 2020 alleging two (2) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and (2) Breach of Contract. PRESENTATION: The Court received the instant motion filed by Defendant on November 18, 2020, an opposition filed by Plaintiff on January 04, 2021, and a reply filed by Defendant on January 08, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COLOREDGE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, VS EDIE GELARDI, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL.

Final Film filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint (“FFXC”) on March 15, 2019, where Final Film Cross-Complained against Plaintiff in three causes of action sounding in certain 2018 transactions, alleging (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Common Account: Open Book Account; and (3) Common Count: Account Stated. Gelardi filed a Cross-Complaint on June 19, 2019, alleging eleven causes of action sounding in (1) Failure to Pay Equal Pay; (2) Violation of Lab. Code §1197.5; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Violation of Lab.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JAMIE WEEKS VS JESSICA MORTAROTTI, ET AL.

In the opposition, defendants argue that the seventh and eighth affirmative defenses for Excuse of Performance and Good Faith, respectively, refer to the first cause of action for Breach of Contract. While the seventh and eighth affirmative defenses refer to an agreement or agreements, these defenses still fail to “refer to the causes of action which they are intended to answer, in a manner by which they may be intelligibly distinguished.” (CCP § 431.30(g).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JESSE DANIELS VS NORTHSTAR SOURCING GROUP LLC ET AL

On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff Jesse Daniels filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against NorthStar Sourcing Group, LLC, NorthStar Sourcing LLC, and Robert Perkins, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) concealment/fraud in the inducement; (5) violation of Labor Code sections 201, 208; and (6) an accounting. Defendants now move for a judgment on pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RICK WILSON ET AL VS STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) breach of contract. State Farm filed a motion (the “Motion”) for an order bifurcating Plaintiffs’ causes of action so that the claims made under two separate insurance policies may be heard and adjudicated separately. Specifically, State Farm seeks bifurcation as to the first and second causes of action in the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARTIN BRIONES, ET AL. VS PENN ESCROW, ET AL.

Breach of Contract/Estoppel (2nd COA) “To state a cause of action for breach of contract, a party must plead the existence of a contract, his or her performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, the defendant’s breach and resulting damage. [Citation]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MIRIAM HERNANDEZ DE PEREZ, ET AL. VS TERESA HERNANDEZ

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed October 1, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of contract; (3) nuisance; and (4) general negligence. B. Motion on Calendar On December 17, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to strike allegations for punitive damages alleged in the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TANN V. HALEY

WHILE THE COURT WILL ALLOW ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE DEMURRER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE COURT WILL NOT ENTERTAIN ANY FURTHER BRIEFING BY ANY PARTY ON THE DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT RAAS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

GARY LEFKOWITZ VS KHALED A. TAWNSEY, ET AL.

The complaint, filed April 2, 2019, alleged causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) RICO; (4) slander; and (5) libel. The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed January 3, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) RICO; (4) extortion; (5) slander; (6) libel; (7) tortious interference with contract; (8) negligent interference with contract; (9) malpractice; (10) refusal of Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KEITH KIRKALDY VS ELEVATOR BOUTIQUE, INC., ET AL.

Instead, Cross-Defendant is making poorly-alleged affirmative claims of negligence, breach of contract and fraud, which is not appropriate in an answer. The thirty-third affirmative defense is for failure to join parties. Cross-Defendant did not cite law that this is an affirmative defense and does not identify who the necessary parties are.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

INDUSTRIOUS MOTORS, LLC V. KHAN

Defendants are correct that the second cause of action for breached of the implied covenant is merely duplicative of the first cause of action for breach of contract. However, redundancy of a cause of action is not a ground on which a demurrer may be sustained. (See Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 890.) Third cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

SHEHEDA ABUSAMAHA VS AAA AUTO CLUB ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

On November 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) asserting causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (4) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Defendant AAA now moves to strike portions of the TAC. [Tentative] Ruling: Defendant Automobile Club of Southern California’s Motion to Strike is granted, in part.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MICHAEL RUBIN, INC. VS 8015 VINELAND, INC., ET AL.

(Superama), Alan Yasmeh, and Does 1 through 100, alleging claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) common counts for work, labor, services, and materials rendered; and (3) fraud. On November 7, 2019, the Court granted Superama’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered the trial court proceedings stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. On November 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed this motion to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6. This motion is unopposed. II.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MSB DISASTER RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. VS TINA ZHENG MA, ET AL.

The fact that both the complaint and cross-complaint assert a breach of contract does not render the number of discovery excessive as a matter of law. The Court does note plaintiff’s concession in a meet and confer letter that it is willing to withdraw Request for Admission Nos. 3, 36-39, 46-58, 61-62, 71-88 and 104. (Dorhout Decl. ¶ 21 & Ex. K.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Cross-complainant Mad Engine demurs to the first cause of action for breach of contract and the second cause of action for violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act in the cross-complaint. A. First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract Mad Engine contends that the Non-Solicitation Provision in the Confidentiality Agreement is void under Business and Professions Code § 16600. (Cross-Compl. Ex. B, ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.