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

CORONADO SHORES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION NO 1 VS CORONADO SHORES LANDSCAPING & RECREATIONAL COMMITTEE

Relying on the "so long as he shall be living, competent and perform his duties" language of Section 7.2, the Committee argues that Yanda's alleged failure to comply with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is sufficient to establish a failure to perform duties. Preliminarily, none of the authorities the Committee relies on allow for the imposition of a duty of good faith and fair dealing on a board member to a board.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CP MARGUERITE MV, LLC VS. O’NEILL

Despite all of the above, the requests to adjudicate the First and Second Causes of Action are DENIED, due to the potential for recovery of nominal damages: While the elements for Breach of Contract include “resulting damages,” “[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…since the defendant’s failure to perform a contractual duty is, in itself, a legal wrong that is fully distinct from the actual damages

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

KIM NGO VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC , 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

    Jul 08, 2020

IVAN K STEVENSON VS WAI CHING SHILON ET AL

The elements for breach of contract are (1) formation of a contract between plaintiff and defendant; (2) plaintiff’s substantial performance or excuse for failure to perform; (3) all conditions for defendant’s performance had occurred; (4) defendant failed to perform; and (5) plaintiff was harmed by that failure. CACI 202.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

MHA PRODIGY, INC. V. CAL PRIVATE BANK

The alleged misrepresentation relates to Defendant’s intentional failure to perform a promise rather than the negligent misrepresentation of a past or existing fact. Therefore, the court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Demurrer to the fifth cause of action with 14-days leave to amend. (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 994.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

FLAG & SYMBOL, LLC. VS VALUE PRICE, LLC.

Johnson (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 630, 632 (“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.”).) Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled. C.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROBSON VS CARNO

The wrongful discharge cause of action, thus, goes forward against CLG alone. 2. 2nd COA: Breach of Contract – Overruled as to CLG, Sustained without Leave to Amend as to Anna Carno 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) damage.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

AZZE VS. WONG

Because of Plaintiff’s failure to perform, Defendants argue that neither damages nor specific performance is available to Plaintiff for Defendants’ alleged breached of November 2017 purchase agreement. Defendants anticipate that Plaintiff will argue that Defendant’s failure to provide missing pages of the Agreement prevented his performance, but Defendants maintain the issue of missing pages did arise until after Plaintiff’s performance was due. (SSUMF No. 8.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS 38700 10TH STREET EAST, LLC, ET AL.

CSE contends that this conduct was nonaccidental because (1) a landlord insured’s failure to perform contractual obligations under a lease is nonaccidental as a matter of law and (2) 38700 was on notice of the apartment’s substandard conditions. CSE’s argument is unpersuasive. Whether or not an insured’s failure to perform contractual obligations under a lease is nonaccidental (discussed post), the fact remains that CSE settled more than breach of contract claims. CSE also settled a negligence claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HOWARD SMITH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS WEST HILLS HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Specifically, in paragraph 55, the FAC alleges: “Though the parties never executed the lease documents, all of the essential terms had been agreed to and plaintiffs had performed all conditions, covenants and promises required to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Medical Office Lease and the First Amended to Lease, except for those items, the performance of which was excused by defendants' breach, interference, or failure to perform.” (FAC ¶ 55.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JASON KANG VS CHRISTIAN RADO

Mere failure to perform is not sufficient to establish promissory fraud. Tenzer v. Superscope (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 18, 30-31 (“’something more than nonperformance is required to prove the defendant’s intent not to perform his promise. . . . [I]f plaintiff adduces no further evidence of fraudulent intent than proof of nonperformance of an oral promise, he will never reach a jury”) (citation omitted). Cross-defendant Kang argues that the claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SO MOON KIM VS CHUNG KYUNG HEE, ET AL.

With respect to the third cause of action for Promise Made without Intent to Perform, cross-defendant also contends that cross-complainants failed to allege more than Kim’s failure to perform in accordance with their agreement as evidence that Kim never intended to perform. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 481 [“[S]omething more than nonperformance is required to prove the defendant's intent not to perform his promise.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

ERBABIAN V. NIGRO

Here, the allegations underlying the seventh cause of action seek to address past wrongs based on Cross-Defendant’s failure to perform his legal obligations. (CC, ¶¶ 58-60.) There is no present controversy between the parties regarding their legal rights under the alleged contract that is necessary to guide their future conduct. Therefore, the court SUSTAINS the Demurrer as to the seventh cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

LUNDAY-THAGARD COMPANY DBA WORLD OIL REFINING VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

LTC relies on the following: (1) the City’s willingness to substitute SJR’s contract performance test results and concomitant refusal to consider LTC’s past sample tests that consistently met the DSR specification; (2) the City’s excusal of SJR’s failure to attend the mandatory pre-bid/BIP meeting and failure to perform BIP Outreach, (3) an internal City email thread referring to the Contract as “pretty much a sole source”, which LTC argues shows that the City believed SJR should be kept in place as the “sole

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

ROBINSON PHARMA, INC. VS WORLD PRODUCT SOLUTIONS. LLC

All defendants demur to the 1st cause of action for breach of contract on the ground that plaintiff failed to set forth the specific terms of the 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) damage. Civil Code §§ 1550, 1605; Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

AUCK VS ALLEN OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC, INC.

Conduct amounting to a breach of contract becomes tortious only when it also violates a duty independent of the contract arising from principles of tort law.” (Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988-989 (also noting prior application of economic loss rule to negligence cause of action).) As a general rule, a defendant’s failure to perform under a contract does not give rise to a fraud cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. V. MATTHEW MAXWELL

The essential elements to prove breach of contract are (1) a contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance or excuse for failure to perform, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff resulting therefrom. (McKell v. Washington Mutual (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2020

GUPTA VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE

As a consequence, Defendant argues, Plaintiff’s failure to perform under the TPP is fatal to his breach of contract claim. (See Opp. at 9 [“even assuming the TPP constituted a Contract, Plaintiff breached its terms by failing to complete the third trial payment.”].) Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to prevail on his claim for breach of contract. Unfair Business Practices (violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2020

GUPTA VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE

As a consequence, Defendant argues, Plaintiff’s failure to perform under the TPP is fatal to his breach of contract claim. (See Opp. at 9 [“even assuming the TPP constituted a Contract, Plaintiff breached its terms by failing to complete the third trial payment.”].) Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to prevail on his claim for breach of contract. Unfair Business Practices (violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2020

SANRIO, INC. VS FAB STARPOINT LLC

This suit is based on defendant FAB’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. Defendant designs and manufactures numerous products, including backpacks, luggage, computer accessories, decorations, gifts, and stationery.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RON HERNANDEZ VS IRCJ HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.

Mere failure to perform is not sufficient to establish promissory fraud. Tenzer v. Superscope (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 18, 30-31 (“’something more than nonperformance is required to prove the defendant’s intent not to perform his promise.’ . . . [I]f plaintiff adduces no further evidence of fraudulent intent than proof of nonperformance of an oral promise, he will never reach a jury.”) (citations omitted).

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RACHEL HOWITT, ET AL. VS CATHY SCULLIN, ET AL.

However, as a matter of law, the failure to perform a duty generally amounts to ordinance negligence, not gross negligence. (Anderson v. Fitness Internat., LLC, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at 881.) Here, the SAC does not allege any further facts to rise the claims from ordinary negligence to gross negligence. Intentional Misconduct In Reply, Defendants do not address the Zugsmiths’ argument that the breach was alternatively causes by intentional misconduct, rather than gross negligence. (Oppo. at p. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

NATIONAL FUNDING, INC. VS. ROTANA HOUSING, INC.

Here, the undisputed material facts establish: [1] the existence of a valid personal guaranty executed by Jubran, by which Jubran “unconditionally” guaranteed Rotana’s obligations under the Loan Agreement (SUF 3, 4; Otero Decl. at ¶¶ 4, 5, Exh. 1-Loan Agreement at p. 10); [2] Rotana’s default under the Loan Agreement (SUF 6, 8, 9; Otero Decl. at ¶¶ 7, 8); and [3] Jubran’s failure to perform under the guaranty (SUF 8, 9; Otero Decl. at ¶ 8).

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

SANRIO, INC. VS FAB STARPOINT LLC

This suit is based on defendant FAB’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. Defendant designs and manufactures numerous products, including backpacks, luggage, computer accessories, decorations, gifts, and stationery.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RM GLOBAL TEXTILE INC. VS MAD ENGINE, LLC

In Magic Carpet, using these five factors, the court found that, based on the submitted evidence, there was a triable issue of fact to whether strict compliance with the agreement was required due to the fact that delay could be compensated and the defendant cured its failure to perform. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.