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.

Business Law
Breach of Contract
Rescission

Paul Kim, Yung Hi Kim v. Chong Hee Kim

Published: Jan. 23, 1999 | Result Date: Aug. 7, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SCV38337 Verdict –  $127,173

Judge

Martin A. Hildreth

Court

San Bernardino Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas J. Yoo
(Holland & Knight LLP)

John S. Cha


Defendant

Randall Billington


Experts

Plaintiff

Jennifer L. Polhemus
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiffs Paul and Yung Hi Kim sold a fast food restaurant to defendant Chong Hee Kim in July 1995 for $65,000 and a $100,000 five-year promissory note. The defendant defaulted, leaving over $95,000 in outstanding principal. The defendant alleged that the sellers misrepresented the prior financial performance of the business overstated gross sales figures, failed to repair equipment and fixtures, and failed to disclose before the sale the sellers' knowledge that an adjacent Burger King restaurant would be discontinuing operation at that location and moving to a more desirable location shortly after the buyer-defendant took over operation of the restaurant. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant based on breach of promissory note, and defendant filed a cross-complaint for rescission.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs made a settlement demand for return of the business and cancellation of the promissory note. The defendants offered to return the business in exchange for cancellation of the promissory note and a refund of the $65,000 down payment.

Damages

The plaintiffs claimed $100,000 in damages.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and three months after the case was filed. At the conclusion of defendant's case in chief the judge denied plaintiffs' motion for nonsuit on the cross-complaint. However, the next day, just before closing argument and jury instruction, the judge ruled that the defendant's claim for rescission was without merit, ruled that the defendant could not present her claim for damages to the jury, and dismissed the cross-complaint. Defendant has indicated inability to pay the judgment and expressed an intention to file bankruptcy.

Deliberation

1½ to 2 hours

Poll

12-0

Length

eight days


#93935

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

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