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

Rulings on Breach of Contract – General

1-25 of 10000 results

MALLIARODAKIS VS. WALNUT CREEK

In the filed SAC, the breach of contract claim is the fifth cause of action and includes paragraphs 52 to 62, however Defendants discuss the sixth cause of action and paragraphs 68 to 77. Defendants’ papers make clear that they intended to demurrer to the cause of action for breach of contract. In addition, Plaintiffs’ opposition addresses the breach of contract claim. The Court will rule on Defendants’ demurrer to the fifth cause of action for breach of contract.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2018

DEFENSE NUTRITION LLC VS JULIAN BAKERY INC

Eagle Mist filed a cross-complaint on 1/10/17 against plaintiff, Hofmekler, Sapphire, and Bruce Olsen for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) interference with contractual relations; (7) interference with prospective economic advantage; (8) inducing breach of contract; (9) unfair business practices; (10) conversion; and (11) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2017

MADRIZ, ANA VS GARCIA, MARIANO

As failure to adequately plead breach of contract does not pertain to the basis of damages or relief, Plaintiff’s motion to strike the breach of contract cause of action in its entirety is denied. However, to the extent Defendant’s motion arguments are based upon failure to plead sufficient facts, the Court will construe the motion as a demurrer to the breach of contract cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL VS. JORDAN BRADSHAW

Analysis Breach of Contract Bradshaw’s primary argument regarding Plaintiffs breach of contract claim against him is that the Agreements are unenforceable non-compete agreements, pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 16600. On a demurrer a court's function is limited to testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Marina Tenants Assn. v. Deauville Marina Development Co. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 122, 127.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2017

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GAHVEJIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. V. LOS KITOS PRODUCE, LLC.

Explanation: Plaintiff cannot support a cause of action for breach of contract, which is the foundation for 18% prejudgment interest. Breach of Contract “A cause of action for damages for breach of contract is comprised of the following elements: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.” (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388.)

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2016

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

SEGOVIANP VS. ENTERPRISE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

(“Spectrum”) demurs to the 1st COA (breach of contract). The elements of breach of contract are (1) existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse from non-performance, (3) breach by defendant, and (4) damages. (Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

SEGOVIANP VS. ENTERPRISE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

(“Spectrum”) demurs to the 1st COA (breach of contract). The elements of breach of contract are (1) existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse from non-performance, (3) breach by defendant, and (4) damages. (Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

DEFENSE NUTRITION LLC VS JULIAN BAKERY INC

Eagle Mist filed a cross-complaint on 1/10/17 against plaintiff, Hofmekler, Sapphire, and Bruce Olsen for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) interference with contractual relations; (7) interference with prospective economic advantage; (8) inducing breach of contract; (9) unfair business practices; (10) conversion; and (11) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2018

FILLMORE & WESTERN VS COMMISSIONERS OF VTA CO

VCTC's alleged promise was memorialized in the 2001 contract upon which FWR bases its breach of contract cause of action. The promissory estoppel claim is therefore subsumed in the breach of contract cause of action, because FWR does not plead a separate promise that is distinct from the promise' that VCTC allegedly made in the 2001 contract. The promissory estoppel cause of action is therefore impermissibly duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2017

EDWARD YOON VS HANA SMALL BUSINESS LENDING INC

Deciding these equitable issues will narrow and possibly eliminate the parties’ remaining claims for breach of contract damages. The motion is granted. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief and injunctive relief, and Defendant’s cross-claim for declaratory relief will be tried first to the court; Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract and Defendant’s cross-claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith will be reserved for a separate trial.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MATHEW KUNDINGER VS SHEILA BLACKWELL ET AL

Breach of Contract and Specific Performance; 2. Breach of Contract, Specific Performance and Damages; and 3. Breach of Contract and Damages. Defendant demurs to all causes of action on grounds that they are uncertain and fail to plead sufficient facts. CAUSE OF ACTION 1: BREACH OF CONTRACT Plaintiff must plead the existence of a contract to establish a cause of action for breach of contract. Plaintiff attaches the purported written agreement as Exhibit A.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2016

SQUARE MIXX LA INC VS 450 S WESTERN LLC ET AL

The Cross-Complaint asserts causes of action for: Breach of Contract (Unit 308); Breach of Contract (Unit FC2); Breach of Contract (Unit FC3); Breach of Contract (Unit FC4); Breach of Contract (Unit FC5); Breach of Contract (Unit FC6); Breach of Contract (Second Lease Amendment for Unit 308); Breach of Contract (Second Lease Amendment for Unit FC2); Breach of Contract (Second Lease Amendment for Unit FC3); Breach of Contract (Second Lease Amendment for Unit FC4); Breach of Contract (Second Lease Amendment

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

B&B VOGUE INTERNATIONAL CO. VS. BRIGHT STAR LOGISTICS, INC.

Analysis Defendant argues that (1) Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because Plaintiff has failed to plead the essential terms of the contract, and (2) the common counts claim is just derivative of the breach of contract claim, and therefore, it too fails. Plaintiff counters that it has alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for both claims. Defendant’s argument prevails.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2017

  • Judge

    Brian S. Currey or John A. Slawson

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST VS. ALIS NAZIKYAN

CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT: (1) Breach of Contract RELIEF REQUESTED: Demurrer to the single cause of action for breach of contract. DISCUSSION: Defendant demurs to the sole cause of action for breach of contract on the basis that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against him and on the basis that the complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible.

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2018

GUSTAVO HERNANDEZ VS CARLOS A. SALAS

Plaintiff’s FAC, filed on August 28, 2017 asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; and (2) Common Counts (Goods and Services Rendered). Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of contract pursuant to CCP §430.10(e) and (f).

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

Walton explains that the proposed breach of contract cause of action is based on long-existing allegations in this action, and it would be prejudiced if it could not assert breach of contract. (Motion at pp. 4, 8.) Walton contends that before the Court’s summary adjudication ruling, “it was not clear whether Walton needed to assert these allegations as a breach of contract cause of action instead of negligence, nor was it clear precisely what allegations should be asserted in this cause of action.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STARZ ACQUISITION, LLC, ET AL. VS ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.) INC., ET AL.

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

    Mar 08, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DEFENSE NUTRITION LLC VS JULIAN BAKERY INC

Eagle Mist filed a cross-complaint on January 10, 2017, against Defense Nutrition, Hofmekler, Sapphire Bakery, and Bruce Olsen for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) interference with contractual relations; (7) interference with prospective economic advantage; (8) inducing breach of contract; (9) unfair business practices; (10) conversion; and (11) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2019

CARTER, JAMES W. V. JACKSON, GENE

The court finds plaintiffs have met their burden in establishing that defendant Legacy of Faith Partners, Inc. is a corporation; the breach of contract claim, involving the March 20, 2017 promissory note, is a claim where attachment may issue; the probable validity of the breach of contract claim; the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than recovery on the breach of contract claim; and the amount sought exceeds zero.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STERBCOW, STACY VS CHASE BANK

The Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, discrimination and defamation are attached. (Complaint, ¶8.) However, the only cause of action attachment included is one for breach of contract. (Id. at p. 3.) The breach of contract attachment does not set forth the elements of a claim for breach of contract, namely, the existence of a contract, breach of that contract, and resulting damages. (See Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LELIA SHARPE VS. EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL

Breach of Contract Plaintiff’s First Amended Form Complaint does not affirmatively state that Plaintiff seeks to recover for Breach of Contract. In fact, Box 10 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Form Complaint states that Plaintiff only asserts causes of action for General Negligence and Premises Liability. As such, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract claim is overruled since the Court finds that no Breach of Contract claim has been alleged.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

BRIAN LOCK VS FLUORESCO SERVICES, LLC

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint rests on a faulty breach of contract claim. Because Defendant’s other claims rest on this breach of contract, all the other causes of action must fail. Thus, the court will address the breach of contract issue first before addressing the other causes of action, despite it being the 5th cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROBERTO CARLOS OJEDA VS KIT-KAT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Defendant argues that punitive damages are improperly sought in this case because the case is based upon an alleged breach of contract Civil Code § 3294 provides for the recovery of punitive damages in actions not based on contract where there is a showing of the requisite oppression, fraud, or malice. Even if a breach of contract is intentional, willful or in bad faith, punitive damages are not available when based solely on breach of contract. Miller v. National American Life Ins.

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY VS AARON RIX

Thus, the four-year time limitation under Section 337(a) began to accrue on the breach of contract claim on January 22, 2013 when the demand letter was sent—if not, on January 14, 2013 when the check was issued to the claimant. Because this action was not filed until December 1, 2017, more than four years after damages were incurred, the breach of contract claim is time-barred under Section 337(a).

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TRISTAN C HATFIELD VS LUCILLE ANKILSBY RENVILLE ET AL

In the motion, Defendants argue that the settlement must be enforced because Defendants have shown a breach of contract on the part of Plaintiff. Defendants expressly state that they are not seeking enforcement under CCP § 664.6, but rather through a breach of contract theory.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.