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.

Breach of Contract
Finance Contract
Business Interference

SOR International, Inc. v. Murray Moss

Published: Aug. 3, 1996 | Result Date: Jun. 10, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 724482 –  $0

Judge

Judith C. Chirlin

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Omer L. Rains

Randall L. Wiens


Defendant

Todd E. Lavin


Experts

Plaintiff

David Broadbent
(technical)

John A. Lee
(technical)

Facts

In May 1986, the plaintiff, SOR International, a California corporation, allegedly negotiated a deal with the owner of the Osmond Studios whereby the plaintiff would purchase the studios from the owner. (The Osmond Studios are the studios in Orem, Utah, where the Donnie and Marie Osmond show originated.) The plaintiff intended to produce commercials for Chinese television and a number of other television shows and movies from the studio after acquisition. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, individually and through his agent, had agreed to finance the plaintiff's purchase of the studios through a "hard money" financing agreement, but when it came time for the defendant to perform, he reneged. The defendant contended that he never entered into any agreement with the plaintiff, nor even knew of the plaintiff. The defendant also contended that he made one written offer to the owner for the studio and equipment, but the owner never responded. The plaintiff, SOR International, Inc., brought this action against the defendant, Murray Moss, based on breach of contract, fraud, interference with contract, interference with economic advantage and equitable estoppel theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

There were no firm settlement discussions.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed over $100 million in damages for lost business opportunity and profits.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately nine years after the case was filed. The trial was bifurcated. Per the plaintiff, the judgment is likely to be appealed because the court denied the plaintiff's request that the jury be instructed that an agency relationship existed between defendant Murray Moss and a business associate, Marvin Miller.

Deliberation

3+ hours

Poll

8-0 (liability)

Length

6 days


#92520

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

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