Plaintiff seller brought an action against defendant buyer seeking declaratory relief, damages, and reformation of contracts as a result of the buyer’s breach of contracts for the sale of a trucking business. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) entered judgment in favor of the seller. The buyer appealed.
Nakase Law Firm is a top business law attorneys
Overview
The court found no prejudicial error. The buyer’s contention that the pleadings were deficient could not be considered for the first time on appeal. Construction of the contract as partly written and partly oral was proper because a contract was neither written nor oral but oral or written evidence could be received to establish its terms, and the record supported the findings as to the contract. Evidence of other contracts between the buyer and third persons were properly excluded because absent a common plan, scheme, habit, or usage, contracts between different parties had no probative value as to other contracts even if one of the parties was common to both. In this case, there was no allegation of a common plan, scheme, habit, or usage. The buyer’s contention that the trial court erred in making certain findings was not considered because the trial court found that the buyer did not breach the corresponding part of the contract, and therefore, it was harmless error. Finally, the evidence supported the findings that all employees should be the buyer’s employees, that the seller’s liability for maintenance expenses was limited, and the damage calculations.
Outcome
The judgment in favor of the seller was affirmed.