Appellant buyer sought review of the judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) for respondents sellers notwithstanding the verdict for appellant and from the order granting respondents a new trial.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains more about minimum wage in San Diego
Overview
Appellant buyer brought an action against respondents sellers for damages caused by respondents’ alleged breach of their escrow agreement. The matter went to trial for breach of contract and excuse, by way of estoppel, for nonperformance by appellant. A verdict was returned for appellant and, on respondents’ motions, the lower court granted judgment for respondents notwithstanding the verdict for appellant and ordered a new trial. This appeal followed. The judgment ordered for respondents, notwithstanding the verdict for appellant, had to be reversed since the evidence was in conflict with the lower court’s rulings that appellant’s rights were assigned to a third party and that respondents were not estopped to contend appellant’s failure fully to perform excused their termination of the escrow. The court reviewed the entire record with an eye to affirming the order granting a new trial based upon the reasons given by the lower court. However, the court was unable to find any substantial error which supported the order. Accordingly, the order granting a new trial on any of the three grounds specified by the lower court could not be sustained.
Outcome
The court reversed the judgment for respondents sellers notwithstanding the verdict because the evidence was in conflict on the points foundational to the lower court’s rulings. The court reversed the order granting respondents a new trial because the order could not be sustained on any of the grounds given by the lower court.