§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition filed

undefined

17 Cited authorities

  1. Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.

    222 Cal.App.3d 1371 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 938 times
    Holding that a claim for breach of the implied covenant may be disregarded if it rests on the same set of facts as a claim for breach of contract

  2. Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick

    60 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 504 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agreement "must not only contain all the material terms but also express each in a reasonably definite manner."

  3. Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter

    7 Cal.5th 781 (Cal. 2019)   Cited 237 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 444 P.3d 97, a tort settlement "included several provisions purporting to impose confidentiality obligations on the parties and their counsel," and counsel signed the agreement "under a notation that they approved [it] as to form and content."

  4. Racine Laramie v. Dept. of P. R

    11 Cal.App.4th 1026 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 317 times
    Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated in the contract"

  5. Butt v. State of California

    4 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 227 times
    Holding education is a "fundamental interest"

  6. Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co.

    44 Cal.App.4th 1807 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 136 times
    Cleaning company's purchase of materials in preparation for performing contractual promise "were essential to its subsequent performance of the service agreement and therefore could not have been considered detrimental"

  7. Blackburn v. Charnley

    117 Cal.App.4th 758 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 45 times
    Upholding trial court grant of specific performance based on balancing the hardships of enforcement

  8. Panagotacos v. Bank of America

    60 Cal.App.4th 851 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that an offer not accepted exactly as is "is a qualified acceptance" which "amounts to a new proposal or counteroffer putting an end to the original offer"

  9. Elias Real Estate v. Tseng

    156 Cal.App.4th 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 9 times

    No. B192857. October 25, 2007. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC323257, Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Judge. Law Offices of Roger C. Hsu and Vincent Chan for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. Ecoff, Law Salomons and Lawrence C. Ecoff for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent. Wasserman, Comden Casselman, Mark S. Gottlieb and I. Donald Weissman for Cross-defendant and Respondent. OPINION ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J. Defendants and appellants are four brothers (the Tseng

  10. Krasley v. Superior Court

    101 Cal.App.3d 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 15 times

    Docket No. 22463. January 25, 1980. COUNSEL Goldin, Haviland Leuthold and Richard R. Leuthold for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Donald A. Nunn for Real Party in Interest. OPINION BROWN (Gerald), P.J. Norman Krasley petitions for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to vacate its order denying his motion for summary judgment and instead to enter summary judgment in his favor. The underlying action was brought by real party in interest James Brennan for specific performance or damages