Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of California - 35 Cal. 2d 607
Tags: Contracts, Mitigation principle, Damages, Breach, Remedies
tl;dr:
Plaintiff went on with the performance of its part of the contract with Defendant even after Defendant repudiated the contract, because the Plaintiff, for its own purposes, needed some of the materials it would gain from the performance.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1950 case, Bomberger v. McKelvey, the California Supreme Court ruled on a contract breach dispute involving building demolition and removal services. The plaintiffs, John Bomberger and others, won compensation from the trial court after the defendants, D.P. McKelvey and others, failed to pay $3,500 for the services. The defendants appealed, claiming no contract breach occurred and no damages or specific performance were owed.
The central issue was whether plaintiffs could receive damages or specific performance due to the defendants' contract violation. The court determined that plaintiffs could receive damages, but only equal to their actual profit loss caused by the defendants' non-payment. The reasoning was that damages are the typical remedy for contract breaches unless inadequate or impractical, while specific performance, an equitable remedy, is granted only when damages are insufficient and the contract is clear.
The court applied the "doctrine of substantial performance," meaning a party with minor defects in their contract performance can still enforce the contract. The case highlights how courts assess contracts involving building demolition and removal and apply damages and specific performance doctrines to avoid unjust gains or hardships from breaches. It demonstrates how courts balance the interests of both parties and aims to avoid unfair results. Bomberger v. McKelvey is an early California contract law case, with an opinion by Chief Justice Gibson.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The plaintiffs sued D.P. McKelvey for non-payment of demolition costs and for money promised to the Hills for surrendering their lease of the premises. A counterclaim and cross-complaint was filed against the plaintiffs and the Hills seeking damages for trespass and waste. The trial court erred in not making R.G. McKelvey a party defendant and in not making the Hills parties cross-defendant. The defendants breached the contract by forbidding plaintiffs to enter, but the plaintiffs were entitled to the full amount due under the agreement as they acted properly in performing their part of the contract. The denial of a preliminary injunction does not have a res judicata effect on the issues presented in subsequent litigation. Judgment was entered for plaintiffs in the sum of $6,000.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.