Procedural Posture

Plaintiff daughter challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) following an order sustaining a general demurrer to her fourth amended complaint without leave to amend. Daughter sought quasi-specific performance of an alleged oral agreement by the terms of which her decedent father promised to transfer to her one-half of his estate, either during his lifetime or at his death.

Overview: Sued on the basis of caci disability discrimination

When daughter was an adult, she finally located and communicated with decedent, who resided in California. Then, daughter informed decedent that she wanted to move to Los Angeles and at the same time she demanded compensation for his neglect and his failure to support her as a child. Daughter alleged that decedent made an oral agreement with her in consideration of her promise to refrain from asserting her claims for desertion and non-support. In addition to seeking to enforce the agreement, daughter's complaint alleged a cause of action was in quantum meruit for services allegedly rendered decedent. On appeal, the court held that the trial court was correct in holding the pleaded agreement was within the provisions of Cal. Civ. Code § 1624(6), the statute of frauds. The court also found that daughter failed to allege either an unconscionable injury or unjust enrichment from which an estoppel to assert the statute of fraud could be raised. The court determined that neither daughter's creditor's claim nor her action was premised upon any right to recover the reasonable value of any services which would afford the basis for a recovery in quantum meruit.

Outcome

The judgment was affirmed.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff representative of defendant manufacturer appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which, in his action for an accounting and for commissions allegedly due under a contract, awarded judgment in favor of the manufacturer.

Overview: 

The pleadings of the representative was that he relied upon an express oral contract whereby the term of the prior written contract was extended for one year. He had testified positively that the agreement was for the balance of the year 1957. The question upon appeal was whether or not the trial court erred in excluding evidence of custom and usage relative to the term of such contracts. The court affirmed judgment in favor of the manufacturer and held that the general rule was that where there was a fixed and established usage and custom of a trade the parties were presumed to contract pursuant to that custom; therefore usage and custom could be relied upon to fix the term of a contract, but only where the contract itself was silent in that regard. Here, the representative's complaint and his evidence showed that he was relying upon a contract whereby the term had been definitely fixed by the parties. Custom or usage regarding the term would only have been admissible if the manufacturer stated that there had been no term stated, which it had not, and the representative could not offer evidence in anticipation of defenses that the manufacturer could, but did not, raise.

Outcome

The court affirmed judgment in favor of the manufacturers in the representative's action for an accounting and for commissions allegedly due under a contract.