Plaintiff buyer, who was also a real estate broker, sued defendant seller for breach of a contract to convey real property, seeking specific performance or damages. Following a bench trial, the Superior Court of San Diego County, California, announced an oral decision in favor of the buyer but modified that decision under Cal. R. Ct. 232, finding that the seller breached the contract but that the buyer suffered no damages. The buyer appealed.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. provides more information about Labor Code 2699
Overview
The buyer argued that the trial court was without authority to modify its judgment. The court disagreed, concluding that the trial court’s orally announced decision on questions of fact, following a four-day bench trial, was tentative and properly subject to change. The court next found that the trial court properly refused to award the buyer damages for a lost commission because the buyer purchased the property on his own behalf; thus there was no agency or employment relationship entitling him to a commission or other compensation. The court also held that: (1) the buyer was entitled to damages for the seller’s breach as specified in Cal. Civ. Code § 3306, specifically the difference between the purchase price and the fair market value on the date of breach, plus consequential damages according to proof, but the proof established no damages under that standard; (2) the buyer was not entitled to damages for lost profits; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the buyer leave to reopen the evidence as to expenses totaling $ 625; and (4) the trial court’s award of attorney fees to the seller was not an abuse of discretion.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment.