Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff real estate broker challenged an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed his complaint against defendant landowner seeking to recover a commission. The broker alleged that he substantially performed the contract and was entitled to his commission and that the landowner was not free to revoke the contract without liability for the time and effort the broker already expended. The best trial lawyers Los Angeles will help you in all legal cases matters.

Overview

Landowner wanted to lease the oil and gas rights on his property. He agreed to pay the broker one-half of the bonus paid by an oil company as commission for negotiating the lease for him. The broker introduced the landowner to a company, but no agreement was reached. The landowner terminated his contract with the broker. The landowner subsequently reached an agreement with the company. On appeal, the court determined that the broker did not substantially perform his contract with the landowner. He did not secure a written lease or offer to lease. He did not introduce the landowner to anyone willing to enter into a lease on the terms and conditions acceptable to the landowner. The landowner was entitled to rescind the contract at any time. The contract between the landowner and broker did not provide the broker with an exclusive agency, but a general agency. The landowner properly revoked the contract before it was consummated.

Outcome

The judgment was affirmed.

Overview

Appellant check cashing company entered into a license agreement respondent store owner for the purpose of operating a check cashing facility at respondent's store. Appellant filed suit after respondent terminated the agreement. The jury found in appellant's favor on its cause of action against respondent and a third party for conspiracy to interfere with business relations and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court ordered a new trial on the grounds that the damages awarded were grossly excessive and appellant sought review. The court held that the facts as construed by the jury did not, without conspiracy, give rise to a cause of action for interference with contractual relations or interference with prospective economic advantage and concluded that the jury verdict vindicating the third party on the individual cause of action for interference with contractual relations was inconsistent with the jury verdict finding all respondents liable for conspiracy to interfere with contractual relations. The court further held that it was required to set aside the inconsistent verdicts, since the inconsistency rendered both verdicts equally against the law.

Outcome

The court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the third party on the cause of action for interference with a business relationship and modified the order granting a new trial to require retrial of appellants' cause of action for interference with contractual relations against the third party only as well as appellants' cause of action for conspiracy to interfere with contractual relations.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service