Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton Development, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
204 Cal. Rptr. 86 (1984)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Ashton Development, Inc. (Ashton) (defendant) and Bob Britton, Inc. (Britton) (defendant) entered into a contract with Rich & Whillock, Inc. (Rich & Whillock) (plaintiff) for the grading and excavation of Ashton’s property, for which Britton was the general contractor. The contract stated that Rich & Whillock would provide the services for $112,900, but also stated that all rocks removed would cost extra. When Rich & Whillock found rock on the site, Rich & Whillock estimated that removing the rock would cost an extra $60,000, but made clear to Britton that the rock removal could actually cost much more. Britton agreed to pay for the extra cost. Rich & Whillock received about $190,000 in payments from Britton and submitted a final invoice to Britton for another $72,286.45. Britton refused to pay the final invoice. Rich & Whillock informed Britton that Rich & Whillock would face financial ruin if not paid. Britton offered Rich & Whillock $50,000 in satisfaction of the contract, saying that Rich & Whillock would otherwise receive nothing. Rich & Whillock, calling it “blackmail,” signed the $50,000 agreement and a document releasing the defendants from any further claims. Britton paid the $50,000. Rich & Whillock sued the defendants for the remaining $22,286.45, which the trial court awarded on the basis that the $50,000 agreement and release had been signed under economic duress. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wiener, 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.