Plaintiff class of land purchasers challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which entered a general verdict for defendant developer on plaintiffs’ fraud and Subdivided Lands Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq., claims. The trial court declined to rule on plaintiffs’ claim upon the Unfair Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., and refused to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict. An EEOC attorney represented respondent.
Table of Contents
Overview
In protracted litigation regarding defendant developer’s alleged misrepresentations regarding the availability of water and sewer services to plaintiff class of land purchasers in a residential subdivision the jury returned a general verdict for defendant on claims that defendant committed fraud and violated the Subdivided Lands Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq. The trial court refused to enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, plaintiffs impliedly conceded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict on their causes of action premised on common law misrepresentation. Plaintiffs argued that the evidence showed without dispute that they were entitled to damages and/or restitution because defendant violated the Subdivided Lands Act under a new theory of the case related to a “fact book’ distributed to plaintiffs at the time of purchase that was briefly and superficially referred to at trial. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. The court determined that plaintiffs had waived the new theory, which contemplated a factual situation the consequences of which is open to controversy and were not put in issue or presented at trial.
Outcome
The judgment was affirmed. The court determined that plaintiff class of land purchasers had waived the principal theory of recovery asserted on appeal that defendants violated the Subdivided Lands Act, as a matter of law, through claimed misrepresentations in a “fact book” because plaintiffs had failed to argue the theory with reasonable clarity to the jury.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff oil company challenged a judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant oil corporation in an action arising from defendant’s purchase of oil from plaintiff. Plaintiff asserted claims of, inter alia, fraud, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unlawful business practices.
Overview
On appeal, the court held that a May 1, 2002 letter did not constitute a binding contract because the letter stated that the duration of the contract, which was a material term of the contract, was conditioned on the approval of defendant’s management. There was no evidence that defendant’s management ever approved the contract. The court also found that the parties did not perform under the letter. Two deliveries of oil accepted by defendant were purchased pursuant to spot contracts, which contained a price different from the formula price contained in the letter. There was no triable fraud issue because plaintiff failed to show that defendant fraudulently rejected conforming oil to obtain a better deal. Defendant’s failure to buy plaintiff’s shipped oil was due to the noncomformance of the oil. There was no triable issue regarding the unlawful business practices claim under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 because plaintiff did not show that defendant’s actions were designed to deceive the public, were violative of public policy, or were immoral and unethical.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.