Procedural Posture

Plaintiffs, a successful bidder on a state road contract and related others, sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Sutter County (California), which granted the motion for nonsuit of defendant, a surety corporation, and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs had filed a breach of contract action against the company that was related to the company's refusal to issue a performance bond to the bidder.

Overview: Under California Civil Code 3294, a plaintiff may be awarded california punitive damages if the defendant is guilty.

The bidder told the company's agent that he might bid upon the state road contract, which required a bond for faithful performance upon the part of whoever received the contract. The company's agent repeatedly informed the bidder that the company would bond the bidder. Thereafter, the company refused to issue the bond and a deposit was forfeited to the State. The bidder testified that he tried to obtain a bond from other sources but was unsuccessful. He also testified that he would have realized a profit from the performance of the contract. On review, plaintiffs contended that their evidence made out a case of actual authority upon the part of the agent. Although the power of attorney from the company to the agent did not include the authority to issue the bond and plaintiffs knew the bond could not be issued without special authorization, they contended that there was evidence from which it could be inferred that such special authority was given. Reversing, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to justify submission of the issue to the jury, as the fact that the agency rested in parol meant that it could be established on trial by the testimony of the agent himself.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment.

Procedural Posture

Defendant landlord appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, which awarded actual and punitive damages to plaintiff tenant in an action by the tenant against the landlord for damages as a result of deprivation of peaceful possession of an apartment.

Overview: 

In a dispute over rent between a landlord and tenant, the landlord allegedly harassed the tenant in numerous ways. This harassment included, inter alia, cutting off hot water to the tenant's apartment, disconnecting phone service, and removing her personal belongings from the apartment. The tenant was unable to sleep or work as a result of the harassment. The tenant brought an action against the landlord for deprivation of peaceful possession of an apartment, and the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the tenant. The landlord appealed and the court affirmed. The court found that the landlord's actions, taken together, interfered with the tenant's right to peaceful possession. The court found that the landlord's course of persecution was a continuing malicious offense. Any evidence which tended to prove the humiliating and terrorizing effect of his conduct or the motive for it was relevant.

Outcome

The judgment in favor of the tenant was affirmed.