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

151-175 of 10000 results

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff Adrian Madden commenced this action against Gurucul Solutions, LLC for (1) breach of contract; (2) failure to pay wages; and (3) quantum meruit. On July 17, 2020, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action with leave to amend. On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant for (1) breach of contract; (2) quantum meruit; and (3) failure to pay wages (pursuant to Ontario Labor Standards Act).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DENISE MARTI VS RACOON SALOON

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None ANALYSIS: Background On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff Denise Marti (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for unlawful business practices, breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant against Defendant Racoon Saloon (“Defendant”)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

SUNPOWER CAPITAL, LLC VS ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff SunPower Capital, LLC commenced an action against Defendant Alejandro Gonzalez for (1) breach of contract; and (2) common counts, seeking damages in the amount of $62,797.69. On December 2, 2020, default was entered against Defendant Alejandro Gonzalez.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JUAN JOSE LOPEZ VS BET ENTERPRISES INC. , ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges causes of action as follows: (1) fraud – intentional misrepresentation against all defendants, (2) negligent misrepresentation against all defendants, (3)suppression of fact against all defendants, (4) “failure of common law duty to disclose material facts” against Pickford, Moreno and Villarreal, (5) negligence against Pickford, Moreno and Villarreal, (6) breach of fiduciary duty against Pickford and Moreno, (7) breach of duty against Pickford and Villlarreal, (8) breach of contract

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff Adrian Madden commenced this action against Gurucul Solutions, LLC for (1) breach of contract; (2) failure to pay wages; and (3) quantum meruit. On July 17, 2020, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action with leave to amend. On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant for (1) breach of contract; (2) quantum meruit; and (3) failure to pay wages (pursuant to Ontario Labor Standards Act).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FNS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS GMB NORTH AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract “The standard 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.’” (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

510 BROADWAY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CORNISH HENS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendant’s Cross-Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed its answer to the Cross-Complaint. On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Special Motion to Strike the Cross-Complaint. (“Anti-SLAPP Motion”) Plaintiff’s Anti-SLAPP motion now comes on for hearing. Defendant opposes the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ALCOTT ENTERPRISES, LLC VS MARAKATA, LLC

Plaintiff’s objections to the declaration of David Hartley are OVERRULED. 1st cause of action for breach of contract “The standard 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.’” Wall Street Network, Ltd., v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 1171, 1178 (citation omitted).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALEXANDRA FACTOR VS DV FINANCIAL GROUP, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

.: 20VECV01053 Moving Party: Defendant CSC Investments dba DV Financial Group Responding Party: Plaintiff Alexandra Factor dba D&A Financial Management BACKGROUND This action arises out of a breach of contract. Plaintiff Alexandra Factor dba D&A Financial Management alleges she loaned money to Defendants DV Financial Group, CSC Investments, Inc. dba DV Financial Group, Beata Sherman, Mark Sherman, Dmitry Ashbel.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DANIEL FORSTER, ET AL VS. CHARLES E. JANEKE, & DOES 1-10

On August 30, 2018, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs and Does 11 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) financial elder abuse; (2) breach of contract; (3) slander/cloud of title; and (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relations. On June 17, 2020, Defendant filed this motion for judgment as both a defendant and a cross-complainant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC. V. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

As to the fifth cause of action for equitable indemnity, the injured party, SANDAG, has only sued HDR (and Skanska) for breach of contract with SANDAG. Therefore, HDR cannot sue Skanska for equitable indemnity because SANDAG’s causes of action against Skanska and HDR do not sound in tort. (See BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 848, 852.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DONGHONG DENG, ET AL. VS EAST WEST BANK, ET AL.

., Breach of Oral Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Declaratory Relief, Rescission & Restitution and Declaratory Relief, Respectively) “[T]he elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PETER STARFLINGER VS ANNA C BLAZEVICH

The court finds that the allegations are sufficient to support claims for breach of contract and common counts in that plaintiff alleges that he is aka Southwest Funding Group, LLC and seeks reformation based on mistake and that he made the payment to escrow.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JAMES O ARMOR ET AL VS ANDREW ARCHULETA ET AL

Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for: Breach of Contract (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); Breach of Warranty (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); Constructive Fraud (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); Fraud (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); BPC §17200 (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); Conversion (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas, Archuleta LLC); Declaratory Relief (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas, Archuleta LLC); Contractor’s Bond (Archuleta, Wesco); Contractor’s Bond (Archuleta, Business Insurance); Contractor

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

EVOCON ENGINEERING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MASON PARI, ET AL.

(“Plaintiff”) filed an action for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien, breach of contract, and quantum meruit against Defendants Mason Pari (“Mason”) and Roya Pari (“Roya”), individually and as trustees of the Mason and Roya Pari 2004 Trust dated March 16, 2004 (collectively, “Defendants”). On April 17, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on December 30, 2020, and Defendants filed a Reply on January 5, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

YONG HWAN KIM ET AL VS CHRISTINE Y KIM ET AL

Then, on February 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging five (5) causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty; fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract; and recission. On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit (Case No. BC655731) against Defendants Simco Construction (“Simco”) and Namu Development, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DREW B. GRUNDFOR V. ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Overlooking the fact that this argument was not raised in the Law Firm Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff has not brought a bad faith or breach of contract claim against the Law Firm Defendants. Plaintiff does not contend that the Law Firm Defendants did not pay Ms. Mayfield’s restitution in violation of the insurance policy. Plaintiff contends that the Law Firm Defendants provided negligent services to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

SUPERIOR COURT VS. SICMOUNTAIN BAY PLAZA

The First Amended Complaint contains causes of action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, quasi-contract, conversion, and violation of Civil Code, § 1950.7. Succinctly, the issue has to do with plaintiff’s leasing of commercial office space from defendant and how the lease is impacted by the current Covid pandemic. II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of the First Amended Complaint. Motions to seal court records are governed by California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS PRECISION CUTTING STONE INC., ET AL.

Therefore, the burden shifts to Defendant to create a triable issue of material fact on the causes of action for Breach of Contract. Defendant failed to meet their burden. In fact, Defendant failed to file an opposition to the instant motion. Consequently, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

INGRAM MICRO, INC. V. VISTA IT SYSTEMS, INC.

In the fourth cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Vista IT fails to plead anything beyond a mere breach of contract. There are no allegations of an affirmative, conscious act that frustrates the contract between the parties. As to the fifth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, this claim is barred by the economic loss rule. It also does not sufficiently allege a fiduciary duty. (Apollo Capital Fund, LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MATT RHOADES ET AL VS MARCO FONSECA

In the event of any material breach of this Settlement Agreement, the non -breaching Party may seek any and all causes of actions and/or remedies set forth in the Lawsuit plus breach of contract of this Settlement Agreement. (See 8/9/2018 Notice of Lodgment, Exh. 2.) This writing was executed by the parties. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

MICHAEL LEVINE, ET AL. VS MONTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiffs Levine and Ozdilek filed their first amended complaint (the “FAC”) on November 9, 2020, alleging twelve causes of action against numerous defendants for: (1) Professional Negligence; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Breach of the Implied Covenant to Perform Work in a Good and Competent Manner; (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (6) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (7) Fraud and Deceit; (8) Aiding and Abetting Fraud and Deceit; (

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

YOPP VS WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

B. 2nd and 3rd causes of action (breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing) Defendants argue that these claims are defective because Plaintiffs fail to identify any term of the loan contract which Defendants breached, Plaintiffs’ fail to allege they performed all of their obligations under the loan contract, any allegation that Defendant breached an oral agreement concerning the modification application is barred by the statute of frauds, and that allegations relating to the Notice of Default

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

OUTSOURCED QUALITY ASSURED SVC INC, A CORPORATION VS NATIONAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant fails to mention that it is incorporated in and has a location in California which regularly received invoices and correspondence which would likely make up a majority of the evidence necessary for this breach of contract case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

LAW OFFICES OF DILIP VITHLANI, A PC VS PRIORITYWORKFORCE INC.

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot prevail on its cause of action for breach of contract. Conclusion Defendant Priority WorkForce, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « 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.