Appellant city challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Procedural Posture Appellant city challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found respondent liable to respondent developer for damages arising out of a claim for anticipatory breach of contract, restitution, and recission.

Nakase Law Firm are lawyers that handles lawsuits

Overview Respondent developer alleged that appellant city breached a lease of city-owned land and a development plan regarding low income senior housing . A jury found in favor of respondent and awarded damages. Appellant contended that there was no enforceable contract unless the mayor signed the contract. The court held that appellant was a general law city and, as such, the leases had to be approved by city council and signed by the mayor. The court held that when a statute limited a general law city's power to make a certain kind of contract to a certain prescribed method, it implicitly prohibited other methods of contracting, and a contract that did not conform to the prescribed method was void. Appellant could not be liable on an implied contract theory for the benefits it received or the damage it caused to the other party to the void contract. The judgment as to liability was affirmed, but the damages award was reversed and remanded for recalculation.

Outcome The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court insofar as it found appellant city liable to respondent developer for breach of contract, as the contract was void where it did not conform with prescribed methods. The award of damages was reversed and the cause was remanded to the trial court with directions to recalculate the amount of damages, if possible, and enter an amended judgment in that amount.