Saturday, May 8, 2021

ngepress.com

---

Procedural Posture Posted: 08 May 2021 04:16 AM PDT Defendant seller appealed from an order of the superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which denied its motion for a new trial, in plaintiff buyer’s action for breach of an express warranty in the sale of goods. California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a California Corporation Compliance Attorney Overview Plaintiff buyer brought an action against defendant seller to recover damages for a breach of an express warranty in the sale of goods. The trial court entered a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appealed from the trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial. The court affirmed the order of the trial court, holding that the court correctly instructed the jury that acceptance by plaintiff and payment of the purchase price did not relieve defendant from liability under its guaranty, and that the evidence sufficiently sustained the verdict of the jury. The court held that acceptance and use of the goods, even after knowledge of the defect, did not prevent a resort to an action upon a warranty. The warranty survived the acceptance, and plaintiff did not need to return the goods, or offer to do so, or give any notice to defendant to sue upon the warranty. Outcome The court affirmed the decision of the trial court, denying defendant seller’s motion for new trial, holding that plaintiff buyer’s acceptance of the goods from defendant, with knowledge of a defect in quality, did not waive its right to recover for damages for a breach of an express warranty of quality. The post Procedural Posture appeared first on Nge Press.

Procedural Posture Posted: 08 May 2021 02:19 AM PDT Plaintiff lawyer appealed a decision from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered summary judgment in favor of defendant lawyers, in plaintiff’s breach of contract action to recover a referral fee in the amount of one-third of the attorney fees that defendants received in a case referred to them by plaintiff. California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a Sexual Harassment Defense Attorney Overview Plaintiff lawyer alleged that he entered into a referral arrangement with defendant lawyers. He further alleged that defendants were to pay him a referral fee in the amount of one-third of the legal fees they received. Under this agreement, plaintiff referred a wrongful termination case to defendants. Subsequently, defendants received over $ 90,000 in fees. Plaintiff filed a complaint that asserted a breach of contract action against defendants for failure to pay his referral fee. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, based on their argument that a contract for a referral fee without disclosure and written consent of the client was void. In opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion, plaintiff argued for the first time that defendants orally promised to inform the client and secure her written consent. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment because noncompliance with Cal. Bar Rules, Prof. Conduct R. 2-108 rendered the agreement unenforceable, and plaintiff’s complaint did not include the essential agreement regarding defendants’ promise to ensure compliance. Outcome The court affirmed the summary judgment in defendant lawyers’ favor because plaintiff lawyer’s referral contract was unenforceable. The court found that the contract was void because it violated the rules of professional conduct where the agreement was not disclosed to the client. Additionally, plaintiff’s assertion that defendants assured him of compliance appeared for the first time in opposition to summary judgment. The post Procedural Posture appeared first on Nge Press.

You are subscribed to email updates from Nge Press. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States