Defendant city appealed the judgment from Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) awarding plaintiff public contractor damages for breach of warranty and fraudulent concealment in connection with a contract for construction of a retaining wall on a street in the city.
Plaintiff public contractor was awarded a contract by defendant city to erect a retaining wall. After beginning construction, plaintiff discovered that defendant had not disclosed that cave-ins had occurred during test drilling and that minute binder instead of clay binder was present at the construction site. ada’s applicability to websites The jury awarded plaintiff damages for breach of warranty and fraudulent concealment. On appeal, defendant asserted that it had not warranted that such information was representative of conditions at any other location or at any other time. The court reversed the judgment as it related to plaintiff’s lost profits; in all other respects the judgment was affirmed. The court held that although a state statute barred tort actions for misrepresentation against public agencies, plaintiff retained a cause of action in contract. The court further held defendant liable on a breach of implied warranty theory for nondisclosure of certain facts which rendered defendant’s positive assertions misleading half-truths, where the facts concealed were exclusively available to defendant and where there was evidence of intentional concealment on defendant’s part.
To the extent that the jury awarded damages in excess of plaintiff’s proven damages, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on the issue of lost profits. In all other respects the judgment was affirmed. The court held that defendant city was guilty of a breach of an implied warranty as to the correctness of its plans and specifications by virtue of concealing certain facts in its exclusive possession.
Appellant environmental protection associations filed an appeal from the decision of the Superior Court of Mendocino County (California), which dismissed their petition for writ of mandate that challenged the approval of a timber harvest plan by appellee agency.
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court. Appellant environmental protection associations filed an appeal from a judgment dismissing their petition for writ of mandate. The petition had challenged the approval of a timber harvest plan by appellee agency. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling appellants had failed to request a hearing within 90 days of filing as required by Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21167.4, and imposed sanctions against appellants under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.5. The court found that appellants failed to serve its complaint within 60 days and presented absolutely no excuse for the delay. The act undoubtedly delayed the resolution of the case. Normally, under the circumstances of the case, the court would defer to the trial court and affirm the award of sanctions. However, under the facts of the case, it could not do so. The court remanded for further proceedings in determining whether grounds existed for imposition of sanctions against appellants independently of consideration of the 90-day rule of Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21167.4.
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings in determining whether grounds existed for imposition of sanctions against appellants associations independently of consideration of the 90-day rule because appellants failed to serve its complaint within 60 days and presented absolutely no excuse for the delay.