Defendant house manufacturer sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered judgment in favor of plaintiff hauling company in the hauling company’s action for breach of contract.
Nakase Law Firm litigates wrongful termination California
The hauling company and contracted to haul the house manufacturer’s prefabricated structures, and did so until the house manufacturer permitted others to do hauling and indicated that it was terminating the contract. The hauling company brought an action for breach of contract, to which the house manufacturer demurred. The trial court overruled the demurrer and after judgment in favor of the hauling company. The house manufacturer sought review of the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding that the demurrer failed because the house manufacturer failed to show how it was not fully informed by the hauling company’s pleadings, or how it was prejudiced by the trial court’s ruling permitting the form of pleadings to stand. The court also held that the claim was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that the contract did not lack mutuality. The court ruled further that the hauling company was not barred from recovery because it held radial highway common carrier permits, that it had fully complied with Ca. Civ. Code §§ 2466- 2469, and had assigned the contract to a fellow corporation.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the hauling company in its action against the house manufacturer for breach of contract.