Plaintiff buyer appealed a decision by the Superior Court of Fresno County (California), which entered judgment in favor of the buyer on the issue of liability in its breach of contract action against defendant seller regarding a sale of wine, but ordered that the buyer suffered no damages as a result of the seller’s breach.
Table of Contents
Overview
The buyer, who owned a wine business, made an offer to the seller, who owned a winery, to purchase 200,000 gallons of the seller’s wine, which was accepted and memorialized in a written document. One hour after signing the contract, the seller advised the buyer that he would be unable to deliver the wine. The buyer filed an action for damages for breach of contract. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the buyer as to liability, but found that the buyer suffered no damage. The court held that the buyer had been damaged by the breach. Upon learning of the seller’s anticipatory repudiation, the buyer was entitled to act upon the repudiation, which he did by purchasing a winery at a higher price to obtain the quantity and quality of wine desired. This purchase was a material change in position caused by the breach. The court rejected the seller’s contention that the buyer could have purchased other available wine at the contract price and not been damaged, finding that the available wine was a different wine, and was not available in the quantity desired. The buyer was not required to buy inferior wine to mitigate the damages caused by the seller’s breach.
Outcome
During trial plaintiff retained professional legal services from a class action lawyer California to present expert testimony. The court reversed the judgment for defendants on the issue of damages and directed the trial court to retry the cause on the sole issue of the amount of damages suffered by the buyer in replacing the wine covered by the contract breached by the seller.
Procedural Posture
The Superior Court of Fresno County (California) granted defendant former employer’s motion for summary adjudication as to plaintiff former employee’s cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy on the ground that it was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 151 et seq., and § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 185. The employee appealed.
Overview
The employee alleged that he was discharged because he complained about fraudulent billing practices and refused to implement those practices. The trial court held that the employee’s claim was preempted and granted the employer’s motion for summary adjudication. On appeal, the court reversed. The court stated that state law claims were preempted if they concerned conduct that was “arguably” protected by § 7 of the NLRA. Here, the employer failed to put forth enough evidence to show that the employee’s complaints and refusals were protected as concerted activity because the individual acts of the employee were not linked with actual group action and therefore his acts could not be concerted. Additionally, the employee’s claim was independent of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), because the trial court could resolve the claim without interpreting the “just cause” language of the CBA. Therefore, the claim was not preempted by § 301 of the LMRA. Finally, the public policy requirement was satisfied, because the public policy of discouraging fraud constituted a fundamental public policy of California and was sufficient to support the employee’s wrongful discharge claim.
Outcome
The court reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to vacate its order granting the employer’s motion for summary adjudication and to enter an order denying that motion.