Logourl black
From our private database of 12,700+ case briefs...

Jara v. Suprema Meats, Inc.

California Court of Appeals
121 Cal.App. 4th 1238 (Cal. App. 2004)


Facts

Jara, Sr. (plaintiff) was a restaurant owner. His son, Jara, Jr., with his friend Rodriguez, started a wholesale meat distribution business named Suprema Meats, Inc. (Suprema) (defendant). Jara Jr. and Rodriguez were majority shareholders in Suprema, while Jara, Sr. was made a minority shareholder. When setting up the business, Jara, Jr. consulted via telephone with his father about the compensation Jara. Jr. and Rodriguez should receive as officers of Suprema. After agreeing it should initially be set at $800 per week, Jara, Jr. asked his father’s advice on whether compensation should only be raised through unanimous shareholder consent. Jara, Sr. supported this idea, and Jara Jr. had the policy written in a footnote in Suprema’s annual financial statement. Suprema was very successful for the next three years, after which Jara, Jr. and Rodriguez decided to increase their personal compensation to twenty percent of the corporation’s profit, a rate in line with industry standards. They did not seek approval from Jara, Sr. The company continued to be successful, and Jara, Sr. was eventually removed from the board of directors. He brought suit in California state court against Suprema for breach of contract, alleging that Jara, Jr. and Rodriguez violated their agreement to only increase officer compensation through unanimous board approval. Suprema stated a contract had never been made, but that the agreement to seek unanimous board approval was merely a gratuitous promise lacking consideration. The trial court upheld the existence of a contract and awarded damages to Jara, Sr. Suprema appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Swager, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 121,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 12,700 briefs, keyed to 172 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.