OPINION

EVANS, J.

Plaintiff and cross-defendant (hereafter appellant) appeals from an adverse judgment in favor of defendant and cross-complainant (hereafter respondent). The trial of the action was bifurcated; the court without a jury considered the question of whether to apply Nevada or California law, and a jury thereafter heard evidence and rendered a verdict on appellant's complaint for recovery of personal property and damages and respondent's cross-complaint seeking rescission, restitution, and compensatory and exemplary damages. The trial court ruled that California law, specifically sections 2981 to 2984.4 of the Civil Code and the Rees-Levering Act, was applicable to the disputed transaction. After applying the Rees-Levering Act, the court, on respondent's claim for rescission, awarded judgment for him in the amount of $7,339.70, attorney's fees in the sum of $750, court costs of $595.50, and possession of the mobile home to appellant.

The jury thereafter awarded respondent $2,320 compensatory damages and $2,500 punitive damages.

The trial court made appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment against appellant accordingly. (1) The appeal comes to us on the clerk's transcript only. On such an appeal, the findings are not subject to challenge, and it must be presumed that the evidence supports the findings. ( Associated Creditors' Agency v. Dunning Floor Covering, Inc. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 558, 559 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 494]; Globe Indem. Co. v. State of California (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 745 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 75].) We are thus limited to a review of the judgment, the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the pleadings. ( Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 222, 226 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 251].)

The undisputed facts as disclosed by the clerk's transcript indicate that respondent was a resident of California, and appellant corporation was a mobile home dealer with its principal place of business in the State of Nevada. In March of 1967, in Nevada, respondent entered into a purchase order agreement with appellant for the purchase of a mobile home. The agreement provided for payment of California sales tax, licensing and registration fees. The financing provisions of the purchase order document were left blank, and failed to contain the warnings and statement of buyer's rights and liabilities required by subsection 10 of subdivision (a) of section 2982 of the California Civil Code.

In May 1967, respondent and appellant executed a conditional sales contract for the actual purchase of the mobile home. The contract form was signed in blank by respondent, and he did not receive a copy of the document. The conditional sales contract failed to contain the warning language required by subsection 10 of subdivision (a) of section 2982 of the Civil Code. Appellant agreed to deliver and place the mobile home on respondent's property in Blairsden, California. The delivery and installation were accomplished. Respondent thereafter made payments on the contract by mail from California. A number of the payments were late but accepted until March 1971. At that time agents and employees of appellant, without permission of respondent, entered on respondent's property in California, intending to repossess the mobile home. They made forcible entry into the home, split it, and in the process drove trucks and other heavy vehicles upon the respondent's property, causing substantial damage. Respondent arrived at his home during the attempted repossession process and ordered the appellant's employees and agents to leave without the mobile home. They complied. Appellant thereafter filed a complaint for claim and delivery in Plumas County to recover possession of the mobile home and for a deficiency judgment. Respondent answered and cross-complained for trespass to chattel and real property, forcible entry and detainer, conversion, misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the California Rees-Levering Act requiring rescission and restitution. (Fn. 1, ante, pp. 967-968.)

On appeal, appellant contends (1) the court erred in applying California law to the disputed contract; (2) the conditional sales contract executed in May 1967 was, in fact, a novation of the earlier March purchase agreement; (3) punitive damages were improperly awarded; (4) the record does not support the award of compensatory damages; and (5) attorney's fees were erroneously awarded.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal taken on the clerk's transcript, we may dispose of appellant's novation, punitive damage, and compensatory damage contentions summarily. Each of those asserted grounds for reversal involves issues requiring evidentiary review. It is elemental that on a judgment roll appeal, the appellate court must conclusively presume that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings, and that the only questions presented are as to the sufficiency of the pleadings and whether the findings support the judgment. ( Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae, supra, 262 Cal.App.2d 222; City of Los Angeles v. Ricards (1973) 10 Cal.3d 385, 390 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 489, 515 P.2d 585]; Bristow v. Morelli (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 894, 898 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 203].) The court in Kompf v. Morrison (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 284, 288 [ 166 P.2d 350], on a judgment roll appeal dealing with similar contentions stated, "Grave miscarriages of justice would result if an appellant was permitted to argue factual questions on such an appeal." Each of the mentioned contentions requires a review of the facts presented if a determination contrary to the trial court's is to be made. The contentions accordingly are rejected.

Attorney's fees were awarded respondent pursuant to the provisions of the California Rees-Levering Act. (Fn. 1, ante, pp. 967-968.) Their propriety is dependent upon the resolution of plaintiff's principal contention that the court erred in applying California law to the contract.

CHOICE OF LAW

(2) Respondent argues that inasmuch as we are considering a judgment roll appeal, we are precluded from deciding the conflict of law issue as well as the others. The argument is without merit. Choice of law cases must be decided by considering factors or contacts with the states involved; in this case, all of those factors or contacts are a part of the clerk's transcript which contains the findings of fact. ( Bernkrant v. Fowler (1961) 55 Cal.2d 588 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 266, 360 P.2d 906].)

Respondent at all times pertinent was a resident of California; appellant was incorporated in and had its principal place of business in Nevada; the contracts were signed in Nevada; respondent made payments by mail from California to Nevada; and the appellant delivered the mobile home to respondent in California. The court, after considering these factors, applied the California Rees-Levering Act to the sale of the mobile home.

Section 97.175 et seq., of the Nevada Revised Statutes are also regulatory of transactions of the type involved. However, they do not provide the specific remedies of the Rees-Levering Act. The Rees-Levering Act, designed to protect buyers from abusive and unethical practices of motor vehicle sellers and dealers, goes further and provides the relief of restitution and rescission to the purchaser.

The Legislature is ordinarily concerned with enacting laws to govern purely local transactions. In this instance it has not defined the extent to which the Rees-Levering Act is to apply to contracts having substantial contacts with other states. Accordingly, the scope of the act must be determined in the light of applicable principles of conflict of law decisions. ( Bernkrant v. Fowler, supra, 55 Cal.2d 588, 594.) The factual situation presented is complex, involving multi-state contacts. In such situations, no single state alone can be deemed to have the exclusive governing rights. ( Reich v. Purcell (1967) 67 Cal.2d 551, 553 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727].) (3) In recognition of this principle, California now follows a methodology characterized as the "governmental interest" approach to choice of law problems. ( Kasel v. Remington Arms Co. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 711, 730 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 314].) Applying this method, the forum must search to find the proper law to apply based upon the interests of the litigants and the involved states. ( Reich v. Purcell, supra, at p. 553.) With the governmental interest approach, "relevant contacts" stressed by the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws are not disregarded, but are examined in connection with the analysis of the interest of the involved state in the issues, the character of the contract and the relevant purposes of the contract law under consideration. ( Kasel v. Remington Arms Co., supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at p. 731.) The forum must consider all the foreign and domestic elements and interests involved in the case to determine the applicable rule. ( Reich v. Purcell, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 555.) (4a) As we view the application of the foregoing guidelines to the issues presented, it is clear the trial court correctly applied California rather than Nevada law. The protection of California consumers from abusive and deceptive sellers, whether local or foreign, is an important subject for protection by California. The California consumer is harmed as much by either one. California has expressed this interest through the adoption of the Rees-Levering Act to specifically prevent fraudulent and deceptive practices in the conditional sales of motor vehicles.

California, as the forum, has a special interest in having its own law apply. (5) The law of the forum will be displaced only if there is a compelling reason for doing so. It is applicable unless either the appellant or respondent has been forced into a forum devoid of such contact as would justify application of its own law. ( Kasel v. Remington Arms Co., supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at p. 731.) (4b) Here, in addition to being the residence of the buyer, the following additional California contacts are present: the buyer initiated his payments in California; the seller delivered and installed the mobile home in California; the loan was secured by California property; and all acts relating to breach (attempted repossession and collection) occurred in California. It is apparent from the findings that California had substantial contacts totally justifying the application of California law.

It is equally clear that Nevada does not have an interest in having its law applied. It may be assumed that Nevada could have a policy of protecting its sellers from having contracts invalidated by the various laws of the several states. However, as indicated, Nevada and California policies are not in conflict. (Fn. 1, ante, pp. 967-968 and fn. 3, ante, p. 971.) Nevada's interest is similar to California's. The practices utilized by appellant are controlled and penalized by both states. The contract involved did not meet the requirements of either Nevada or California law. The court in Hurtado v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 574, 580 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 106, 522 P.2d 666] commented as follows: "Although the two potentially concerned states have different laws, there is still no problem in choosing the applicable rule of law where only one of the states has an interest in having its law applied. [Citations.] `When one of two states related to a case has a legitimate interest in the application of its law and policy and the other has none, then there is no real problem; clearly the law of the interested state should be applied.' [Citation.]"

We find no interest needing the protection of the Nevada laws and conclude the court properly made a choice of law in applying the Rees-Levering Act.

Having so concluded, we can dispose of appellant's contention that attorney's fees were erroneously awarded. The Rees-Levering Act specifically provides for the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party in any action on a conditional sales contract subject to provisions of the act.

INTEREST

(7) With respect to general interest on the damage award, liability for interest is to be determined by the law of the forum. ( Perkins v. Benguet Cons. Min. Co. (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 720 [ 132 P.2d 70].)

Section 1033 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part: "The clerk or judge shall include in the judgment, or any part of a judgment, entered up by him based upon a cause of action in contract where the claim was unliquidated, interest on the verdict or decision of the court from the date prior to the entry of judgment as may have been fixed by the court pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 3287 of the Civil Code, and the costs, if the same have been taxed or ascertained. In any other case, and where the court determines that interest should not be recovered from a date prior to the entry of judgment under subdivision (b) of Section 3287 of the Civil Code, the clerk or judge shall include in the judgment entered up by him, any interest on the verdict or decision of the court, from the time it was rendered or made, and the costs, if the same have been taxed or ascertained."

Section 3287 of the Civil Code provides:

"(a) Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt. This section is applicable to recovery of damages and interest from any such debtor, . . .

"(b) Every person who is entitled under any judgment to receive damages based upon a cause of action in contract where the claim was unliquidated, may also recover interest thereon from a date prior to the entry of judgment as the court may, in its discretion, fix, but in no event earlier than the date the action was filed."

(8) Applying these sections, whether or not interest is included in the damage award (either by the court or by the jury), the award must bear interest at the legal rate during the period following rendition of the verdict or decision and until entry of judgment. ( Espinoza v. Rossini (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 567, 569 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 110]; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Judgment, § 136, p. 3284.) Thereafter, any final judgment for money bears interest at the legal rate from the date of entry. This is so regardless of whether or not the original claim was liquidated or unliquidated, in contract or in tort. ( County of Los Angeles v. Lorbeer (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 804, 809 [ 323 P.2d 542]; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Judgment, § 137, p. 3285.) Interest also continues during an appeal. ( Espinoza v. Rossini, supra, 257 Cal.App.2d at p. 569.)

Respondent is entitled to have interest for the seven-month period between verdict and judgment, and interest thereafter until satisfaction of the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed and remanded with the direction that interest consistent with this opinion be made a part of the judgment.

Regan, Acting P.J., and Paras, J., concurred.

FINDINGS OF FACTS "I

"II

"III

"IV

"V

"VI

"VII