Everything you need to know about legal expenses - AsharHabib511/Prowriter GitHub Wiki

Defendant water owner appealed from the judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), in favor of plaintiff landowners in separate actions for the recovery of damages alleged to have been caused by the water owner's failure and refusal to furnish water to the respective properties of the landowners. Prior to April 30, 1921, the landowners and their predecessors in interest received water from the water owner's pumping plant under a contract between the water owner and the landowners' predecessors in interest. The water owner refused to furnish water to either landowner after April 30, 1921. The landowners separately instituted actions to recover from the water owner damages for an alleged breach of a contract to furnish water to the respective properties of the landowners. The trial court awarded damages in favor of the landowners. After jury trial, the parties were responsible for money damages and legal expenses. On appeal the court reversed, holding that: (1) the contract was lacking in mutuality because it did not provide any obligation or promise on the part of the landowners or their predecessors in interest to take or purchase any water from the water owner; and (2) the contract was void for uncertainty because the parties to the contract must have intended that the price paid would bear some relation to the period of time during which the water was being delivered and used, and the period of time was not expressed in the contract. The court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the landowners in their actions for the recovery of damages alleged to have been caused by the water owner's failure and refusal to furnish water to the landowners' properties.