Appellants, plaintiffs, challenged the decision of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) granting summary judgment in favor of respondent bank in appellants’ suit alleging breach of contract.
Nakase Law Firm answers is it illegal to get paid under the table
Overview
Appellants brought suit against respondent bank alleging the parties’ had a binding contract to purchase real property and respondent breached that contract. Further, appellants argued respondent was liable for emotional distress damages due to its violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2941. The trial court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, appellants argued that the contract to purchase the property was enforceable because the essential terms of the contract were reasonably certain. The court held that whether the contract was enforceable was immaterial because appellants never accepted the offer. Further, the appellants added an additional term in a response letter, constituting a counteroffer. The court found that the sellers of the property never accepted the counteroffer. Thus, the court held that the trial court properly found that there was not a binding contract between the parties. As to the emotional distress contention, the court held that the evidence before the trial court failed to establish that appellants suffered emotional distress attributable to respondent’s acts.
Outcome
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to respondent in appellants’ breach of contract action. The court reasoned that appellants failed to establish that a binding contract existed, and the evidence did not demonstrate that respondent’s conduct caused appellants’ emotional distress.