Defendant growers sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Procedural Posture Defendant growers sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered a judgment for plaintiff company in a breach of contract action.

Overview: Responsibilities of a police identification and records officer

The company and the growers entered into a contract, which provided that the company advanced $ 5000 to the growers to cultivate their crops, the company was the growers' exclusive agent for the sale of the crops, the growers agreed to repay the advance if the crops were not in marketable condition, and the advance would otherwise be repaid through the sale of the crops. The company filed a breach of contract action against the growers. The superior court entered a judgment for the company. The growers appealed. They argued that the contract created a relationship of joint adventurers. The court affirmed the judgment. It determined that the contract created a debtor and creditor relationship because the parties did not agree to share the profits and losses.

Outcome The court affirmed the judgment for the company. Procedural Posture Defendant car manufacturer sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which approved a jury award for damages to plaintiff car dealership in an action challenging defendant's decision to open a competing dealership within ten miles of plaintiff's car dealership and because defendant did not grant plaintiff dealership a Maserati franchise.

Overview: Plaintiff car dealership sought damages against defendant car manufacturer claiming that defendant unlawfully attempted to terminate its dealership agreement, caused inventory shortages, and interfered with attempts to sell the dealership after defendant decided to open a competing dealership. Plaintiff dealership also claimed that defendant failed to comply with an agreement to provide plaintiff the Maserati line of cars. The trial court entered judgment upon a jury's award of damages, which did not include a finding that defendant had attempted to terminate the dealership agreement. Defendant contended on appeal that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the franchise agreement did not create any territorial rights. The court accepted defendant's claims and reversed the judgement awarding damages. The court found that the franchise agreement did not grant defendant any right to prevent other competitors from entering any given market or territory and that plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by bringing its complaint regarding the Maserati line of cars before the New Motor Vehicle Board.

Outcome The court reversed the trial court order awarding damages to plaintiff car dealership because the franchise agreement with defendant manufacturer did not contain an express grant of exclusive territory to plaintiff and because plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the New Motor Vehicle Board regarding defendant's refusal to provide plaintiff with Maserati cars.