H. Russell Taylor’s Fire Prevention Service, Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Corporation
California Court of Appeal
99 Cal. App. 3d 711 (1979)
![JL](https://quimbee-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/educator/photo/176/Josh_Lee.webp)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
H. Russell Taylor’s Fire Prevention Service, Inc. (Taylor) (plaintiff) entered into an oral agreement with Coca Cola Bottling Corporation (Coca Cola) (defendant). Pursuant to the agreement, Taylor made deliveries to Coca Cola of cylinders filled with carbon dioxide for use as fire extinguishers. After the termination date of the contract, Taylor demanded the return of hundreds of cylinders in Coca Cola’s possession. Coca Cola failed to return 246 of the cylinders. Taylor filed suit against Coca Cola and then amended its complaint to waive its tort claim for conversion and to proceed in assumpsit or implied contract. The trial court found that Coca Cola’s failure to return the cylinders was a taking and detaining of goods and channels. Because Taylor had waived the tort claim for conversion of goods, the trial court treated the action as based on an implied-in-law contract for the purchase and sale of the cylinders. The trial court found that the four-year statute of limitations of the California Commercial Code (Code) for contract actions was applicable, which meant that the suit was timely filed. Coca Cola appealed, arguing that the Code’s statute of limitations for contract actions was inapplicable and that the correct period was the three-year statute of limitations for tort, under which Taylor’s suit would not be timely.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Zenovich, 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.