Plaintiff general partnership appealed from a decision of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California) that entered judgment in its favor in an action for breach of a real estate contract, but denied plaintiff recovery of lost rents as consequential damages and specific performance. Defendants, company and others, cross-appealed.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are Los Angeles Business Lawyers
Plaintiff general partnership brought action against defendants, company and others, for breach of a real estate contract. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, but awarded no damages. The trial court then denied plaintiff’s request for specific performance. In subsequent proceedings, the trial court awarded plaintiff, as prevailing party, costs and attorney’s fees. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in denying recovery of lost rents as consequential damages and in denying its request for specific performance. Defendants cross-appealed, contending that the real estate broker violated his duty to disclose his personal interest in the contract, thus entitling them to judgment as a matter of law. The court reversed and remanded for a redetermination of the request for specific performance. The court held that by permitting the trial court to consider defendants’ ability to perform at the time of the decree provided the court with greater latitude in exercising its equitable power to order specific performance when appropriate. The court found that such construction of Cal. Civ. Code § 3390 provided greater assurance that a contract was performed.
The court reversed a trial court judgment denying plaintiff general partnership specific performance after the jury returned a verdict in its favor in an action for breach of a real estate contract. The court remanded the matter to the trial court for further hearing on the issue of specific performance, considering the ability of defendants, company and others, to perform at the time the trial court entered its decree.