In an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, defendant lessor appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County (California), which was entered upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff lessee. The lessor also challenged an order of the same court that denied the lessor’s motion for a new trial.
Nakase Law Firm explains covenant of good faith and fair dealing California
Overview
The lessor and lessee entered into a contract for the lease of a certain ranch, but when the lessor refused to lease the ranch on the basis that a former tenant could not be dispossessed in time, the lessee filed an action to recover damages for the alleged breach of contract. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the lessee, and the trial court entered judgment upon the verdict and denied the lessor’s motion for a new trial. The court affirmed the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial. The court found that the evidence justified the jury’s finding that the agreement constituted a present lease and was not simply an agreement to make a lease when the former tenant could be dispossessed. It could not be said that the lessor could not make a valid lease of his land until all former leases had expired, and the tenants had surrendered back to him the possession. The lessor could not complain about jury instructions that were not given, because he should have asked for such instructions. The jury instructions upon the question of damages stated the law fully and fairly.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the lessee in its action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract by the lessor. The court affirmed the order denying the lessor’s motion for a new trial.