Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Procedural Posture

Defendant corporation appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which held that the corporation was estopped from repudiating a contract with plaintiff lessor.

Overview

The parties entered into an agreement in which the lessor agreed to cancel his lease with a hotel and surrender possession and certain furnishings to the corporation. In return, the corporation agreed to guarantee payment of certain specified sums and furnish the lessor's room and board in the hotel for a period of one year, or, at his option, pay him a certain amount monthly in lieu thereof. The lessor canceled the lease and remained at the hotel for 10 days. The corporation paid the proprietor for the lessor's room and board for that period, but denied any further obligation under the contract. The corporation alleged that the president entered into the contract on the corporation's behalf without authority. Affirming, the court held that the evidence showed that the president was held out by the corporation as possessing the authority that he assumed. Also, the corporation, with full knowledge of all the facts involved, imparted through its president acting in its behalf, accepted and retained the benefits of the transaction. Therefore, the corporation was estopped from repudiating the contract.

Outcome: caci negligent misrepresentation

The court affirmed the judgment.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff estate executor sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which entered judgment in favor of defendant employer in the executor's action to recover damages for the alleged failure of the employer to provide medical treatment to the executor's decedent.

Overview

The decedent was the original plaintiff but after he died the executor was substituted in his place. The executor argued that the employer had failed to provide the decedent with medical and surgical necessities according to the terms of an employment contract. The employer asserted that it had never refused to give the decedent any medical treatment. There was a conflict in the evidence and the court held that the trial court's findings that the decedent never requested any medical treatment from the employer or its agents was concluded by the verdict. The court determined that the employer did not have a duty to affirmatively make any investigation as to the health of its employees in the absence of a demand made on it by any employee. The executor also contended that the trial court erred in the jury instructions given. The court disagreed and decided that the instructions were proper. Finally, the court concluded that evidence that was provided that showed that the decedent was ill before beginning his employment was properly admitted.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service