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 Contract

Agdayan v. Leos

Published: Jul. 29, 2000 | Result Date: Feb. 16, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: KC029878 Bench Decision –  $14,940

Judge

Robert M. Martinez

Court

L.A. Superior Pomona


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Raffi R. Shahinian


Defendant

Jack H. Burthe


Facts

According to the plaintiff: The plaintiff sold his transmission repair shop to defendant for the sum of $46,000
with $16,000 down and a $30,000 note, payable in monthly installments of $1,700 per month The note was
secured by the business inventory and equipment.
The defendant operated the business for six months. Thereafter, the defendant claimed that the parties agreed
the the plaintiff would take back the business, enduring any further obligation by the defendant.
The plaintiff alleged that he agreed to sell the remaining business inventory and equipment and apply the
proceeds to the balance remaining under the note, and that the defendant would satisfy the remaining balance.
The plaintiff sold the business inventory and equipment but the defendant refused to pay the balance.
The defendant contended that the sale of the assets was a non-judicial foreclosure and that since it was not
conducted in strict compliance with Commercial Code Section 9504, the plaintiff was barred from recovering a
deficiency judgment. The defendant also cross-complained for fraud in the underlying transaction.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $7,500, increased to $15,000 during trial. The defendant/cross-complainant offered mutual dismissal.

Damages

According to the plaintiff: Complaint: $16,000 plus 10 percent interest from date of breach. Cross- complaint: $100,000 for fraud and punitive damages.

Other Information

According to the plaintiff: After both sides rested, plaintiff moved to amend the pleadings to conform to proof and included a cause of action for breach of oral accord agreement. Because the plaintiffÆs sale of the business assets was done pursuant to the terms of the oral accord, the defendantÆs argument under Commercial Code Section 9504 was inapplicable. The plaintiff prevailed under the amended cause of action for breach of an oral contract.


#85375

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

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