Defendants, a buyer and associated individuals, sought review of decision by the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which rendered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, a seller and associated individuals, in the seller’s and the associated individuals’ action to recover damages for breach of a contract of the sale of a cocktail bar.
Nakase Law Firm are Los Angeles employment lawyers
The buyer contended that the amount of the judgment was not supported by the evidence, and that the trial court erred in permitting an amendment to the seller’s complaint at the time of trial, which added several items of alleged damage. The court held that the trial court finding that the seller sustained a loss of $ 2,500 was fully supported by the evidence and the specific findings in the premises. The court determined that the trial court properly awarded $ 2,654.87 to the seller for the damages arising out of payments on the equipment, carpeting, cash register, and landscaping. The court stated that the contract made no provision for prorating the previously paid annual liquor license. The court reversed on the issue of damages alone because although the buyer received an indirect benefit from the liquor license, the buyer did not agree to pay the seller anything therefor over and above the stipulated contract price. Thus, the seller was not entitled to recover this item. The court determined that the trial court did not err in permitting an amendment to the seller’s complaint at the time of trial, which added several items of alleged damage.
The court reversed the judgment with instructions to the trial court to reopen the case for further proceedings on the issue of damages alone, and thereafter to enter judgment in favor of the seller and against the buyer in such amount as it might have determined to be proper, consistent with the views expressed in the court’s opinion and the law and the facts in the premises.