This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Purchase and Sale Agreement

Shahram Azordegan, One Source Global Tech Inc. v. Albert Agadjanian, Carloops Inc.

Published: Jul. 3, 2010 | Result Date: Jun. 21, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC365798 Verdict –  $1,310,000

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Alireza Taheripour
(Law Offices of Ali Taheripour)

Mary Der-Parseghian


Defendant

Perry Roshan-Zamir


Experts

Plaintiff

Alan D. Wallace
(technical)

Eva Salzer
(technical)

Facts

On May 24, 2005, defendants Albert Agadjanian and his company, Carloops Inc., placed the Carloops business, a car wash and lube/detail facility for sale, on the real estate market. The eventual purchaser was plaintiff Shahram Azordegan and his company, One Source Global Tech Inc.

On March 13, 2006, plaintiffs and defendants entered into a purchase contract for the purchase of the "Business Interest" for the total sum of $1.9 million and a separate lease agreement for the real property for the next 30 years.

The parties disputed the nature and extent of the interest that was the subject of the purchase and sale agreement, including the non-disclosure of a construction project that resulted in the street closure of 322 N. Sunset Ave., La Puente, California, and whether the sale of the business included all leases and the right to re-lease the property after termination of the existing leases.

Plaintiffs filed suit for breach of written contracts, seeking damages.

Contentions

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants claimed that they provided full disclosure and the sale of the business included the existing leases, but did not give the buyer the right to re-lease the property to new tenants.

Result

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, awarding $1,310,000 in damages.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Feb. 5, 2007.

Deliberation

one hour

Length

eight days


#117493

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390