Advantec Group, Inc. v. Edwin’s Plumbing Co.
California Court of Appeal
153 Cal. App. 4th 621, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195 (2007)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Advantec Group, Inc. (Advantec) (plaintiff) hired Edwin’s Plumbing Co. (Edwin’s) (defendant) to provide plumbing services and materials for an apartment-building project. Advantec ultimately sued Edwin’s for breach of contract, seeking damages of $168,476.40. Two months prior to trial, Edwin’s filed a cross-complaint, also alleging breach of contract. The cross-complaint alleged that Edwin’s was a licensed plumbing contractor in California. Advantec’s answer to the cross-complaint was a general denial of all cross-complaint allegations that did not specifically challenge Edwin’s license status. During the jury trial, Edwin’s attempted to provide testimony that it was properly licensed during the contract’s term. However, Advantec objected and insisted on a verified license certificate. The trial court sustained the objection, and Edwin’s requested a continuance to obtain the verified certificate. However, this occurred on day four of the jury trial, and the trial was almost over. The verified certificate could take two weeks to get. The trial court denied the continuance and granted a nonsuit on Edwin’s cross-complaint. The jury awarded Advantec $46,200 in damages. Edwin’s appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Willwhite, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.