Procedural Posture

Appellant brewer challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County (California), which found in favor of appellee distributor and offset the beer account deficiency on which the brewer filed suit by the judgment awarded to the distributor plus interest. The brewer also appealed orders denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion to amend the judgment on verdict nunc pro tunc.

Overview

The brewer filed suit for breach of contract and the distributor prevailed in the first trial. The case was remanded and the distributor again prevailed. The court held that: (1) substantial evidence at the second trial supported the jury’s implied finding that there existed between the parties an oral contract creating a beer distributorship for an expressly agreed-upon term, as long as the distributor continued to use his best efforts to promote and solicit the sale of the brewery’s products; (2) the distributor had performed the agreement for 19 years, incurring substantial expense and providing facilities to build up a valuable distributorship for the marketing of the brewery’s beer; (3) the contract was not one lacking mutuality, was not illusory, and was not terminable at will; (3) the contract was not within the statute of frauds as a contract which by its terms had to endure beyond one year; (4) the decision on the previous appeal did not establish a contrary “law of the case;” and (5) the trial court did not erroneously instruct the jury either on the issues relating to liability or regarding damages. There were no employment attorney that were engaged nor retained by petitioner.

Outcome

The court affirmed the orders denying the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and denying the motion to amend the judgment on verdict of the jury nunc pro tunc. The judgment was modified, deleting the allowance of interest to the brewer. The trial court was directed to enter a modified judgment for the distributor in accordance herewith. The distributor was awarded his costs on appeal.

Procedural Posture

Petitioner title insurance company sought writs of mandate to review the order of respondent, the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), compelling discovery of petitioner’s in-house counsel, and requesting vacation of respondent’s order granting summary adjudication on petitioner’s causes of action for fraud, breach of duty of good faith, and for money had and received.

Overview

Petitioner title insurance company sued real party in interest bank for causes of action including fraud, breach of duty of good faith, and for money had and received after a corporation used the bank in a check kiting operation. The trial court made a discovery order compelling petitioner’s in-house counsel to answer questions propounded at a deposition. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate, arguing that the questions violated the attorney-client privilege. The court denied the writ, finding that the trial court correctly ruled that the attorney-client privilege had been impliedly waived by petitioner by pleading causes of action in fraud, because the attorney’s actions were so intertwined with activities which were wholly business that a distinction between the two roles became impossible to make and because his dual role as both business agent and attorney provided him with the most comprehensive awareness of the relationship of the parties. The court also found that the trial court correctly granted the bank’s motion for summary adjudication as to three causes of action: fraud, breach of the duty of good faith and for money had and received.

Outcome

The court denied petitioner title insurance company’s request for peremptory writs of mandate because the trial court correctly ruled that petitioner had waived the attorney-client privilege and real party in interest bank made no representations for fraud and did not owe petitioner a duty of disclosure.