Procedural Posture

Procedural Posture

Appellant grower sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County (California), which entered a judgment in favor or respondent assignee in an action for breach of a contract to provide raisin grapes.

Overview

The assignee of a fruit packing company brought the action against the grower to recover damages for the grower's refusal to deliver the raisin grapes pursuant to a written agreement. The superior court entered a judgment in favor of the assignee. On review, the court reversed. The grower alleged that the contract between the fruit company and himself was procured by fraud. Is It Illegal define? If something is illegal, the law says that it is not allowed. It is illegal to intercept radio messages. Birth control was illegal there until 1978. The grower sought to introduce evidence that the agent for the packing company advised the grower that he would receive an advance payment. The superior court refused to admit such evidence. The court noted that proof of a contemporaneous or prior oral agreement could not detract from the terms of a contract in writing. The rule could not be avoided by showing that the promise outside the writing had been broken; such breach in itself did not constitute fraud. But a promise made without any intention of performing it was one of the forms of actual fraud. Thus, if the agent and the packing company had no intention of making the advance, actual fraud existed and the evidence was admissible.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment of the superior court.

Procedural Posture

Procedural Posture

Defendants, three companies and their owners, appealed an order from the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which denied pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (c), their motions to compel arbitration of contract and tort claims asserted by plaintiffs, investors in the companies' real estate investment funds.

Overview

The complaint alleged that the companies had mismanaged six funds. Some investors put their money into just one fund, while others invested in multiple funds, and each fund had different types of investments. The trial court found that there was a possibility of inconsistent rulings because some of the investment options did not have arbitration provisions in the governing documents. The companies did not request a statement of decision under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 632, 1291. Embezzlement define as a white-collar crime that takes place when an individual entrusted with property, money, or another asset dishonestly appropriates. The court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., did not apply because the arbitration provision was specific enough to show that the parties intended to be bound by California's procedural rules on arbitration. The record lacked substantial evidence to support implied findings that each of the conditions required to apply the third-party litigation exception of § 1281.2, subd. (c), had been satisfied on each motion. Although inconsistent rulings on common issues might occur if investors who chose different options within the same fund were alleging misconduct relating to the management of the same property, the evidence was insufficient to show that this was indeed the situation.

Outcome

The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.