Superior Court of Fresno County (California)

Procedural Posture

Appellant seller challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County (California), which held in favor of respondent buyer's assignee in the assignee's breach of contract action against the seller.

Overview

The buyer and seller entered into an agreement for the sale of personal property used in the seller's jewelry business. The contract specified that $ 950 was due as payment for itemized fixtures but that an inventory of merchandise had to be made to determine the balance of the purchase price. The buyer assigned his interest under the contract to an assignee. The buyer and an employee of the seller prepared an inventory, but the assignee refused to acknowledge it. The assignee tendered the $ 950 and demanded the premises. The seller refused to complete the transaction because the assignee refused to allow him to remove the disputed merchandise. The trial court awarded damages to the assignee. Reversing the judgment, the court held that the assignee's tender was defective, both because it was accompanied by a condition that the assignee had no right to exact and because it was insufficient in amount. The seller's demand that he be permitted to remove the merchandise before possession of the store was given to the assignee was reasonable. The tender was insufficient because it was only in the amount of the fixtures and did not cover the value of the merchandise.

Outcome: quiet title action California

The court reversed the judgment.

Procedural Posture

In an eminent domain action, plaintiff city sought to acquire part of defendant owner's land for a freeway project. A jury determined net damages based on findings as to the fair market value of the property, severance damages to the remainder parcel, and the project benefits. The Superior Court of San Diego County, California, granted a new trial on the ground the findings were internally inconsistent and thus against the law. The city appealed.

Overview

In holding that the special verdict findings were inconsistent, the trial court explained that the jury found the fair market value of the "part taken" to be $ 5,589,200. When that amount was divided by the number of acres subject to development, the resulting value was $ 445,000 per acre. In determining severance damages, however, the jury found the severance damages to the remainder parcel to be $ 5,324,000, the exact figure suggested by the owner's appraiser. To arrive at this figure required a value of $ 850,000 per acre for both the larger parcel and the part taken. The court of appeal affirmed the grant of a new trial, agreeing with the trial court that the jury rendered inconsistent special verdict findings by implicitly finding the same property to have two different fair market values in its condition before the project. The inconsistent and irreconcilable implied findings rendered the special verdict against the law. The court rejected arguments by the city that the verdicts had to be harmonized if there was any possibility of reconciling them, that the error was harmless or invited, and that the verdict should stand as a matter of public policy.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's order.