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

51-75 of 10000 results

SOJO VS COSTELLO DEMURRER TO CROSS COMPLAINT

Second Cause of Action – Overruled The elements of a claim for breach of contract are “(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.” (Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exchange (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 990, 999.) Integrity Escrow argues only that the second cause of action fails “for the same reasons that … [the] negligence claim fails.” (Memo in Support, p. 9:26.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

JWMCC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS IHG MANAGEMENT (MARYLAND) LLC

Defendant identifies an arbitration clause in the Amended and Restated Management Agreement that applies to Plaintiff’s tort and breach of contract claims.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUPERIOR COURT VS. BELLA VISTA APARTMENTS

On 21 December 20181, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting causes of action for: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Use and Enjoyment (3) Fraud (4) Nuisance (5) Premises Liability (6) Negligence (7) Breach of Contract On 25 September 2019, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Cross-Complaint On 26 November 2019, Defendant filed a cross-complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

MICHAEL A. VAUGHN VS JOHN CANNING

.: 18SMCV00399 Motion: Defendant John Canning’s Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP) Hearing Date: 1/21/2021 Background On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed the FAC, which contains causes of action for (1) conversion, (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (3) intentional interference with contract, (4) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) unfair business practices, and (7) inducing breach of contract.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS SEDA KHALATIANS, ET AL.

Breach of Guaranty (1st 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 21, 2021

THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA VS IBIERE SECK, ESQ.

Therefore, Cross-Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate how these allegations, central to Cross-Complainant’s breach of contract claim, arise from protected activity pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court DENIES Cross-Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TEJEDA VS GUTIERREZ

Both parties bring breach of contract claims alleging that the other party did not uphold their end of the bargain. The determination of this issue necessarily involves an interpretation of the agreement between the parties. The court is the proper entity to make those decisions. Once the court has decided all issues of judicial interpretation between the parties, then the court can order an accountant to review the records and make a factual determination as to who has paid what.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

SHELLY HART VS COURTNEY SULLIVAN, ET AL.

First Cause of Action - 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 Ruffin was the leasing manager and Baumgartner the property manager for Morgan when she entered into the lease contract with Plaintiff. (FAC, ¶ 20.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AUTOMATED PARKING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN AEROSPACE INTERNATIONAL, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled. Plaintiff states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. “The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.” Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

GEORGE SANTOPIETRO VS JAMES HARDEN, ET AL.

Factual Background This is an action for breach of contract. The Complaint alleges as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JASON PAPICH V. ALLIANCE READY MIX

Jason Papich and April Papich, as Trustees of the Papich Family Trust, dated September 20, 2004 (“Plaintiffs”), filed this breach of contract action against Alliance Ready Mix, Inc. (“Defendant”) on August 7, 2020. Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages when Defendant failed to comply with Section 1.04 of an Industrial Real Estate Lease, which requires that personal guarantees be executed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

J.D. AQUINO CORPORATION VS PORTFOLIO ESCROW, INC., ET AL.

On August 1, 2019, without any order for leave, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, reckless disregard of duty and gross negligence, negligence, breach of statutory duty and foreclosure on bonds, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and two causes of action for declaratory relief. Lending Bee, Inc. is now named in one of the two breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory relief causes of action. RULING: Granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SUKHDEV S. SANDHU VS TEMPLE HOSPITAL REALTY INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

This action for breach of contract was filed by Plaintiff SUKHDEV S. SANDHU (in pro per) on July 8, 2020. Plaintiff’s Form Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Common Counts; and (3) Fraud. Defendants demur to all causes of action pursuant to CCP ¶430.10(e).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CANDY LOPEZ VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC ET AL

On December 20, 2018, Quon filed a Cross-Complaint against Lopez and UPS for breach of contract and for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. On June 17, 2019, Quon filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, naming among others, individual Cross-Defendants Morgan Price (“Price”), Donald Tefft (“Tefft”), La Shawn Stanford (“Stanford”), and Fausto Vargas (“Vargas”). On August 3, 2020, Quon filed the operative Third Amended Cross-Complaint (“TACC”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

WOLF VS WG TEMECULA, LP

The arbitration agreement states that it applies to “any and all legal claims or civil actions arising out of or relating to care or services provided to you … (e.g. claims for refund, breach of contract, intentional tort, wrongful death, elder abuse, unfair business practices) or relating to the validity or enforceability of the Residency Agreement … [which] will be determined by submission to arbitration as provided by: (1) the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) … or (2) CA law, in the event a court determines

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

MARK WURM VS BIG DADDY FOODS, INC, ET AL.

., Debby Parker, and Jamie Parker, and Does 1 - 10 for breach of contract and Common Counts. Plaintiff filed the proofs of service on December 6, 2019. The proof of service for Jamie Parker indicates that Jamie Parker was personally served on October 21, 2019. The Proof of Service indicates that Debbie Parker was served by substituted service on the same date. Big Daddy Foods, Inc. was also served by substituted service.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

SARGON LAZAROF VS TODD BERNSTEIN

Background On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff Sargon Lazarof (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, common counts, and fraud against Defendant Todd K. Bernstein (“Defendant”). Defendant filed his Answer on October 15, 2019. On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for breach of contract, which was granted on June 29, 2020. (6/29/20 Minute Order.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

TITANIUM FABRICS LLC VS VIV COLLECTION INC ET AL

The Complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, open account, account stated, goods sold and delivered, conversion, claim and delivery, promise without intent to perform, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. On September 18, 2020, counsel for Jun served Special Interrogatories, Set No. on Plaintiff. (Park Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BOW TIE REALTY AND INVESTMENT, INC. VS CAROLINE S. LEE ET AL.

BC697147) Lee sued Bowtie (a real estate broker) and United Escrow (an escrow company) alleging breach of contract and fraud. On October 31, 2018, the court awarded Bowtie $2,810 in discovery sanctions. On November 29, 2018, an abstract of judgment was issued. On January 25, 2019, the court issued another monetary sanction award in the sum of $5,466.69 against Lee for further discovery abuses. On February 12, 2019, Bowtie filed a “Notice of Lien” in the underlying action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA VS IBIERE SECK, ESQ.

Therefore, Cross-Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate how these allegations, central to Cross-Complainant’s breach of contract claim, arise from protected activity pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court DENIES Cross-Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

REBECCA COOPER VS KENNETH GRAY, ET AL.

., and 21st Century Wellness, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for (1) material misrepresentation in securities transaction; (2) breach of contract; (3) rescission; (4) conversion; (5) breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud negligent misrepresentation; (6) fraud; and (7) violation of Penal Code section 496(c). On June 21, 2019, Kenneth Gray, Mowgly Unlimited, Inc., and KAG Consulting, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANAGEMENT INC. VS NATHAN YOUNG, ET AL.

This case arises in breach of contract, fraud, and common counts. On 02/05/2020, Plaintiff Management Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Defendants Nathan Young and David Young (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants defrauded Plaintiff when Defendants repredented that they would abide by the terms of a written contract to pay rent, but that Defendants had no intention to pay rent. Plaintiff complains that Defendants owe $118,800.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC VS E-Z CAR CREDIT, INC., ET AL.

Background On February 26, 2018, Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Plaintiff”) filed an action breach of contract and common counts against Defendants E-Z Car Credit, Inc. (“E-Z”), William Vanderford (“Vanderford”), and Robin Hedges (“Hedges”). Default was entered against Defendant Hedges on August 26, 2019 and against Defendants Hedges and Vanderford on October 4, 2019. A default judgment was thereafter entered on October 30, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

GUNDRY PARTNERS, L.P. VS MAVERICK DECATUR GEORGIA, LLC

Background Facts Plaintiff, Gundry Partners, L.P. initiated this action against Defendant, Maverick Decatur Georgia, LLC (“Maverick”) for breach of contract and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. Maverick hired Gundry as its general contractor for a project called “Olympix Fitness.” After Gundry filed it action against Maverick, Maverick cross-complained against Gundry alleging deficiencies in the work performed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RAFI PELTEKIAN, ET AL. VS INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. On June 4, Defendant answered and filed a peremptory challenge to Department 47. The case was assigned to Department 49. RULING: Granted. The motion was improperly reserved with the court as a motion to compel, rather than the identified motion to compel further responses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 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.