RUNYAN V. PACIFIC AIR INDUSTRIES, INC.
2 Cal.3d 304 (1970)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a suit in restitution and for consequential damages.
FACTS: Pacific (D) was a corporation engaged in aerial surveying and photogrammetric
services. In 1965, Runyan (P) was a geologist and engineer employed by Tidewater. n October
he responded to an ad placed by D in the Wall Street Journal for franchise territories in
California. Eventually in March 1966, P and D entered into a written contract for which P
paid $25,000 to be an exclusive photogrammetric franchise in the counties of Inyo, Kern,
Kings, and Tulare. P had resigned his position with Tidewater on February 18, 1966. Almost
immediately, D did not live up to its end of the bargain. P complained that D was making
charges for first order instrument work at arbitrary rates. On October 7, 1966, P gave D
written notice of rescission based on fraud and failure of consideration. P sued for
restitution and consequential damages. The trial court found in favor of P on his first
count for rescission for failure of consideration but not on his other three counts for
rescission for fraud nor for a common count of money lent. The trial court found that P was
entitled to recover the franchise free and his net consequential damages in the sum of
$5,273.25. Those net fees are listed on page 634 Rendlemen 6th edition. This appeal
followed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment