What is breach of contract – not completing a job?

Useful Rulings on Breach of Contract – Not Completing a Job

Recent Rulings on Breach of Contract – Not Completing a Job

XIAOXING ZHANG VS ZHE ZHANG, ET AL.

First Cause of Action – Breach of Contract “A cause of action for breach of contract requires pleading of a contract, plaintiff's performance or excuse for failure to perform, defendant's breach and damage to plaintiff resulting therefrom.” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1031.) Zhang argues that this cause of action fails because the XC1 does not allege the existence of a valid contract. (Motion at p. 10.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NOYEMI KAROYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HYUNDAI OF GLENDALE, LLC A BUSINESS ENTITY EXACT FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

In the arbitration context, waiver does not require relinquishment of a known right, but arises from a party’s failure to perform an act it is required to perform, regardless of the party’s intent to relinquish the right to arbitration. [Citation.] There is a presumption against waiver, and the party seeking to demonstrate waiver bears a heavy burden of proof. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SABA VS F.P.R.

To the extent Plaintiff’s negligence claim depends on failure to perform under the contract, the claim fails. If Plaintiff is alleging Defendants damaged property beyond the performance of the contract, the court grants leave to amend. For the seventh cause of action, intentional infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff fails to allege extreme or outrageous conduct. Defendants’ alleged negligence in the completion of the home repairs is insufficient. (See (Fuentes v. Perez (1977) 66 Cal.

  • Hearing

HANMI BANK VS DBS ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTIONS, INC., ET AL.

to perform any other obligation required by the Financing Agreement constituted default; (6) and that in the event of default, SCL could declare the casualty value or such lesser amount as set by law immediately due and payable, take possession and if appropriate, render unusable any of the Equipment wherever it is located, without any process of law.

  • Hearing

HOWARD RAISHBROOK, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS SUNPOWER CORPORATION, SYSTEMS, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

While Sunpower breached its obligations under section Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, it appears unusual circumstances contributed to its failure to perform its obligations. At that point, Plaintiffs, as they had a right to do, withdrew from the arbitration. They made no effort to restart it after the late fees were paid. Instead, they proceeded in court, as was their right. Under these circumstances, terminating sanctions would be unjust.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PARS PUBLISHING CORP VS. ORDWAY CORP

to perform under the Equipment Purchase Agreement dated November 17, 2014.

  • Hearing

NIR FERTIG, ET AL. VS CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

The Company could not have performed construction work without an RMO and Fertig’s failure to perform his duties as RMO enabled the Company to commit at least six violations of law that resulted in substantial injury to the San Mateo Project homeowner.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JENNIFER RUSH VS KATHRYN IRELAND, ET AL.

Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, 774, the Court of Appeal described the common law duty contracting parties have to perform with reasonable care, skill, expedience and faithfulness, and stated that the same wrongful act may constitute both a breach of contract and an invasion of an interest protected by the law of torts. Negligent performance of a contract entitles the aggrieved party to sue in tort or contract, distinguishing failure to perform, which gives rise only to a contract action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PACIFIC POST RENTALS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS ALYSE G. BERKLEY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ALYSE G. BERKLEY TRUST, ET AL.

Moreover, Plaintiff has not alleged Defendant’s failure to perform a promise. Plaintiff’s FAC fails to allege how the consideration became entirely void under the agreement or how Plaintiff’s consideration failed in a material respect. Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

CHENG YANG VS JTNA ENTERPRISES, LLC

Defendant’s breach and failure to perform under the Lease are a substantial factor in causing damages to Plaintiff. (Id., ¶16.) However, “[i]f facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence.” (Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.) Again, the Lease is attached as Exhibit A to the complaint.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

STAMATIS STAMATOPOULOS VS ALEX YAMINI, ET AL.

“A plaintiff is entitled to recover nominal damages for the breach of a contract, despite inability to show that actual damage was inflicted upon him [citation], since the defendant's failure to perform a contractual duty is, in itself, a legal wrong that is fully distinct from the actual damages.” (Sweet v. Johnson (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 630, 632; accord Civ. Code § 3360 (“When a breach of duty has caused no appreciable detriment to the party affected, he may yet recover nominal damages.”).)

  • Hearing

VLADIMIR LEVIN VS GLENN TODD ROSEN, ET AL.,

Rosen for failure to perform with competence, failure to respond to client inquiries, moral turpitude – misrepresentation, among other charges. (See RJN Ex. 1.) Mr. Rosen states, “On July 17, 2018, Defendants answered the second amended complaint and filed a cross-complaint. Subsequent to filing of the answer and cross-complaint, I ceased participating in the litigation of the action as a result of my mental incapacities.” (Rosen Decl. ¶ 13).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NIR FERTIG, ET AL. VS CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

The Company could not have performed construction work without an RMO and Fertig’s failure to perform his duties as RMO enabled the Company to commit at least six violations of law that resulted in substantial injury to the San Mateo Court Project homeowner.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

Paragraph 115 alleges the City sent BA Hotel a notice of default for failure to perform under the Forbearance Agreement. The City argues the notice of default was a precondition to litigation and therefore protected. This reading divorces paragraph 115 from its context, particularly paragraph 116, which alleges the notice of default was “filed in error” because there was no default. Newport Harbor addressed a similar situation.

  • Hearing

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

Paragraph 115 alleges the City sent BA Hotel a notice of default for failure to perform under the Forbearance Agreement. The City argues the notice of default was a precondition to litigation and therefore protected. This reading divorces paragraph 115 from its context, particularly paragraph 116, which alleges the notice of default was “filed in error” because there was no default. Newport Harbor addressed a similar situation.

  • Hearing

SEAN CARLSON VS ANDREW ARTHUR, ET AL.

In the arbitration context, waiver does not require relinquishment of a known right, but arises from a party’s failure to perform an act it is required to perform, regardless of the party’s intent to relinquish the right to arbitration. [Citation.] There is a presumption against waiver, and the party seeking to demonstrate waiver bears a heavy burden of proof. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

SANRIO, INC. VS FAB STARPOINT LLC

BACKGROUND On May 8, 2019, plaintiff Sanrio, Inc. filed a complaint against Fab Starpoint LLC for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint alleges that it is based on defendant’s failure to perform numerous obligations and to make payments required under the parties’ January 1, 2014 Merchandise License Agreement and its subsequent amendments. Sanrio owns the intellectual property rights to hundreds of popular characters, including Hello Kitty.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE GAP, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND OLD NAVY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, VS HCL INGLEWOOD VILLAGE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE,

To state a cause of action for breach of contract, a plaintiff must plead the following elements: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for failure to perform; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damage to plaintiff. (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489.) A written contract may be pleaded either by its terms—set out verbatim in the complaint or a copy of the contract attached to the complaint and incorporated by reference—or by its legal effect.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NIR FERTIG, ET AL. VS CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

The Company could not have performed construction work without an RMO and Fertig’s failure to perform his duties as RMO enabled the Company to commit at least six violations of law that resulted in substantial injury to the San Mateo Project homeowner.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DRAKE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS BRIAN KENNEDY, ET AL.

There is no factual showing to justify the failure to perform the review in seven months. Brian has not shown good cause for a protective order at this point. Brian’s moving papers asks the court to order that Regency not comply with Drake’s demand to image the server until Brian can inspect and remove personal information. However, Brian offers no explanation for why such inspection and removal was not complete in the 7 months that has passed since the motion was filed.

  • Hearing

NOUSHIN MOTAVASSEL VS SHAHROKH MOKHTARZADEH, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action – Breach of Contract “A cause of action for breach of contract requires pleading of a contract, plaintiff's performance or excuse for failure to perform, defendant's breach and damage to plaintiff resulting therefrom.” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1031.)

  • Hearing

VICTOR MONTES , ET AL. VS PAMA IV PROPERTIES, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action – Breach of Contract “A cause of action for breach of contract requires pleading of a contract, plaintiff's performance or excuse for failure to perform, defendant's breach and damage to plaintiff resulting therefrom.” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1031.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LUZ LAINEZ VS COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, ET AL.

Nothing in the second contract -- the Assessment and Financing Contract – suggests that Renew undertook liability for the contractor defendants’ failure to perform under the improvement contract. (Complaint, Ex. 2 § II(B).) There is no allegation of any wrongdoing whatsoever by Renew. The only wrongdoing is alleged against other defendants.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DERIC WHITE VS PHILIP SCHOEPPNER, ET AL.

Indeed, Defendants created many of the dangerous and untenantable conditions at the Subject Property, by their abject failure to perform any maintenance. Further, Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of his home, and demanded or collected, under threat of eviction, monies from Plaintiff to which Defendant was not entitled. (Complaint ¶ 28.) None of these allegations of breach are based on protected activity.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ROBERT MAKUTA, ET AL. VS PRISTINE WINDOWS, INC., ET AL.

First, by basing their fraud claim on Defendants’ alleged failure to perform their contractual obligations, Plaintiffs improperly conflate a failure to perform a contractual obligation with a false promise. If these promises were one in the same, then every breach of contract claim would also support a fraud cause of action. Put simply, Plaintiffs facts are sufficient only to show a breach of a contractual promise.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 32     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.