Recently in Contract Law Category

Sam Lufti claims he was Britney Spears' manager during some of Brit's darkest hours. We're talking about the head-shaving, beating-an-SUV-with-an-umbrella days that made Kevin Federline look like a model of parental stability.

The problem with Lufti's claim is that he doesn't have a signed contract.

In litigation, the "prevailing party" often wins attorney's fees and costs, in addition to bragging rights.

But what happens if neither party wins? In that case, the issue of whether or not a party "prevailed" depends on whether you're addressing costs or attorney's fees.

What does California law say about non-competition agreements when a high-level executive from one company moves over to the competition?

If you’re in the Silicon Valley, you know where this conversation is going. Yahoo finally named a new CEO.

And here’s the kicker— they snatched up a high-level executive from the company that was driving them into the ground: Google.

In hindsight, mutuality of obligation seems quaint. Probably because it's one the first concepts we learned in contract law. (Mutuality is to law school what "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" is to piano lessons.)

But according to California's Third Appellate District, mutuality still matters in employment agreements.

The Bachelor/Bachelorette series is a money-making machine for ABC. It's also been lucrative for the Reality Steve spoilers website, which publishes the outcome of each Bachelor/Bachelorette season based on insider intelligence long before the final rose is bestowed upon the lucky winner.

If you enjoy The Bachelor, Reality Steve spoilers, and litigation, you'll love The Bachelor lawsuit. NZK Productions and Alternative Television Inc, the production companies behind the hit series, are suing Stephen Carbone, aka Reality Steve, for tortious interference, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Viterbi v. Wasserman, D055209, concerned a challenge to the trial court's grant of nonsuit as to the securities fraud claims in plaintiffs' suit against their former employee for securities fraud related claim, who worked as an analyst on plaintiffs' biotech investments.  In affirming, the court held that, because privity of contract is necessary to maintain an action for rescission under sections 22504 and 22504.1, a purchaser of securities may not maintain such a claim against someone other than the direct seller, as rescission requires the contracting parties to be placed in the position they were in prior to contracting, and a non-seller, who did not receive any money from the purchaser, cannot return that money to the purchaser.

People v. Wilkins, G040716, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for first degree murder under the felony murder rule, when a stolen stove fell from defendant's truck and killed a victim. 

Challenge to trial court's grant of lift of stay of litigation in breach of contract action

MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC, D055967, concerned plaintiffs' suit claiming that defendants fraudulently induced them to enter into certain health club franchise agreements, and failed to provide them with operational support that the defendants were to provide pursuant to the terms of the agreements.

Fraud exception to the parol evidence rule

Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Prod. Credit Ass'n, F058434, concerned plaintiffs' suit against defendant-creditor alleging causes of action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, rescission, and reformation, arising from a breach of a written forbearance agreement.  In reversing the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court held that, because plaintiffs' evidence of misrepresentations fell within the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule, the evidence should have been admitted to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition to defendant's motion.

Speilman v. Ex'Pression Ctr. for New Media, A122357, concerned plaintiffs' suit against defendant-private postsecondary educational institution, which offers courses in sound arts, digital visual medial, and Web design and development, for violation of Education Code former sections 94312, 94832, and 94875, as well as various other causes of action, claiming that defendant made certain misrepresentations to them, including that it would soon be nationally accredited, that they would graduate from the school with degrees from a nationally accredited institution, that their degrees and credits would be transferable to other accredited institutions.