Gerwin v. Southeastern California Association of Seventh Day Adventists
Court of Appeal of California
14 Cal. App. 3d 209 (1971)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
The Southeastern California Association of Seventh Day Adventists (SCA) (defendant) contracted to sell restaurant and bar equipment to Henry Gerwin (plaintiff). Subsequently, Gerwin brought an action seeking specific performance and damages for breach of contract. At a nonjury trial, Gerwin testified about the cost of obtaining substitute equipment, which ranged from $25,000 to $75,000. Gerwin’s testimony was not contradicted. However, Gerwin did not obtain substitute equipment. SCA did not know it was contracting with Gerwin in particular, or of Gerwin’s particular needs, when accepting the bid. Gerwin sought lost anticipated profits for his restaurant and hotel business, but presented no evidence of the history of comparable local businesses. The court found that Gerwin’s bid was accepted by SCA, that Gerwin performed all required conditions, and that SCA refused to deliver. The court awarded specific performance or, if SCA failed to perform, $25,000 in damages in lieu of specific performance. The court further awarded $20,000 for consequential damages based upon loss of anticipated profits. The court denied SCA’s motion for a new trial, but reduced the $25,000 award to $15,000. On appeal, SCA argued that (1) the $15,000 award was excessive and (2) the award for consequential damages was improper.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tamura, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.
