Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Procedural Posture In an action for specific performance of an escrow agreement for the sale of real property, defendant seller appealed from the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found that plaintiff buyers were entitled to the relief requested. Overview The parties were in a dispute over the validity and enforcement of a contract for the sale of real property. The seller appealed the trial court's judgment for the buyers, as well as related orders by the trial court involving other parties in the proceeding. The seller disputed the validity and enforceability of a prior agreement for the sale of acreage and related procedural rulings in the case, including rulings on various cross-complaints. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court decreeing specific performance, although it reversed on some other aspects of the complex case. The buyers were entitled to specific enforcement of the agreement as contained in the disputed escrow instructions. The contract of the parties represented fair and adequate consideration for the sale of the real property. The seller had no valid reason to object to the consummation of the sale of the acreage to the buyers. Thus, the trial court properly decreed specific performance in accordance with the equitable rights of the buyers. Outcome: personnel file request The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Procedural Posture Plaintiff, an assignee of contract rights, challenged an order of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which refused its request for a new trial after rendering judgment in favor of defendant land development corporation, in the assignee's action to recover an amount alleged to be due on an account stated. Overview The assignor was a contractor, and the corporation was engaged in subdividing land in San Mateo County, Cal. The assignor had made two contracts with the corporation for grading streets and doing other work on the land, and he claimed that it was indebted to him for labor and materials furnished under the contracts. The assignee sued the corporation to recover a sum alleged to be due on an account stated. The complaint alleged, in two counts, that an account had been stated between the assignor and the corporation in San Mateo County and in the city and county of San Francisco. A bench trial resulted in findings, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the corporation. The assignee's motion for a new trial was refused, and it appealed. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in finding that no account had been stated. The president of the corporation agreed that there was an account, and there was no evidence that this agreement was personal between the assignor and the president. The president had the authority to bind the corporation, and the corporation's bylaws should not have been admitted because they did not limit the president's contract authority. Outcome The court reversed the order of the trial court.