Procedural Posture

Plaintiff challenged the grant of summary judgment by the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), in favor of defendants, manufacturer, supplier, and lessor of sanding machine, in plaintiff's action for strict products liability, breach of warranty, negligence, and loss of profits as the result of a defective sander.

Overview: Sued on the basis of caci 1001

Plaintiff sued defendants, manufacturer, supplier, and lessor of a sander plaintiff used in his cabinet making business, for strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. Plaintiff alleged the sander caused damage to a customer's cabinets and that plaintiff lost profits due to that company terminating their contract with plaintiff. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed. The court reversed the summary judgment except as to the allegation of breach of express warranty. The court found that plaintiff did not allege any affirmations of fact or promises made by defendants to plaintiff pursuant to Cal. Com. Code § 2313. The court found that pursuant to Cal. Com. Code § 2314 plaintiff alleged a breach of implied warranty of merchantability because factual issues of whether the sander conformed to the standard of like performance use in the trade were not addressed. The court also found that plaintiff's damages were not limited to physical damage to his property and he properly pled a basis for recovery of at least the cost of the repair of the damaged cabinets.

Outcome

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, manufacturer, supplier, and lessor, as to the allegation of breach of express warranty because plaintiff did not allege any affirmations of fact or promises made by defendants to plaintiff. Summary judgment on strict product liability, breach of warranty, and negligence was reversed because plaintiff could recover for economic loss for damages to customer's cabinets.

Procedural Posture

Defendant purchaser appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County (California) entered in favor of plaintiff seller in the seller's breach of contract action.

Overview: 

The seller agreed to sell and the purchaser agreed to buy the entire crop of grapes growing upon the seller's ranch. The seller sued to recover the balance of the purchase price remaining unpaid on the grapes actually delivered to and received by the purchaser. The seller also sought to recover at the contract rate for grapes tendered to the purchaser, which the purchaser refused to accept. The jury verdict in favor of the seller made no allowance of interest, in regard to which the trial court had given no instruction. However, the trial court directed the clerk to add to the amount of the verdict interest at the rate of seven percent. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that the seller being entitled to interest in the amount allowed by the trial court as a matter of law upon the pleadings and proof, there was no issue of fact as to interest to be submitted to the jury. The court reasoned that since the jury had no discretion in the matter, it made no substantial difference to the purchaser whether interest was added to the judgment by the verdict of the jury rendered pursuant to the direction of the court or by the court instructing the clerk.

Outcome

The court affirmed.