Facts

Edward Litke owned residential property in San Francisco. In 1998, Litke hired architect Michael Stanton to obtain approval for a proposed development project. Pursuant to a contract, Stanton developed a plan for a 39-unit structure which he submitted to the San Francisco County board of supervisors.

A dispute arose between the parties regarding billing, but nevertheless, at Litke's request, Stanton convinced the board of supervisors to approve the development project. Subsequently, Litke sold the property for $3.9 million. Stanton filed a lawsuit against Litke claiming breach of contract and fraud. Litke filed a counterclaim for fraud and tortious interference.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed that owed him money for services rendered. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant promised him a share of the profits from the development project if the plaintiff could convince the board of supervisors to approve the project.

After the property was sold, the plaintiff claimed that he still did not receive payment for any of his services. He also did not receive a share of the sale price. The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached the contract between the parties by promising to compensate the plaintiff with a share of the sales price in lieu of paying him a retainer. The defendant also fraudulently convinced the plaintiff to design the development project and approach the board for approval of the project with no intention of paying the plaintiff.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's plans for the project could not be used, thus the defendant committed fraud by representing that they were appropriate for development. In addition, the plaintiff tortiously interfered with the sale of the property. Defendant contended there was no agreement to share the sale price of the land.

The defendant challenged the amount the plaintiff sought for services rendered and claimed that his damages totaled no more than $10,000.

Settlement Discussions

According to the plaintiff: the plaintiff demanded $150,000. According to the defendant: the plaintiff demanded $300,000. The defendant offered $52,500.

Damages

The plaintiff sought $90,000 owed under the contract and either 10% of the sale price of the property ($390,000), or $210,000 for services rendered.

Result

$189,000. The defendant was only found liable for breach of contract. The plaintiff was not found liable on the counterclaim.

Poll

12-0 (on breach of contract); 11-1 (on damages)

Length

three weeks