§Why CasetextPricing

RIVERISLAND COLD STORAGE v. FRESNO MADERA PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION

Respondent's Petition for Review

27 Cited authorities

  1. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

    26 Cal.4th 465 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,230 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Restating the same criteria for exceptions from the rule set forth in section 1714

  2. Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Secs. Corp.

    14 Cal.4th 394 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 771 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding fraud in the inducement "occurs when the promisor knows what he is signing but his consent is induced by fraud"

  3. Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun

    32 Cal.4th 336 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 338 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding oral or written extrinsic evidence may not be introduced "to vary, alter or add to the terms of an integrated written instrument," but only "to explain the meaning of a written contract . . . [if] the meaning urged is one to which the written contract terms are reasonably susceptible"

  4. Price v. Wells Fargo Bank

    213 Cal.App.3d 465 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 342 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "relationship between a bank and its loan customers" not fiduciary in nature

  5. Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp.

    53 Cal.App.4th 15 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 254 times
    Holding that "the privilege attaches at that point in time that imminent access to the courts is seriously proposed by a party in good faith for the purpose of resolving a dispute, and not when a threat of litigation is made merely as a means of obtaining settlement"

  6. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

    216 Cal.App.3d 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 136 times
    Finding that a sales brochure was ineffective to vary the terms of subsequent contract

  7. Alling v. Universal Manufacturing Corp.

    5 Cal.App.4th 1412 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 124 times
    Excluding evidence business purchaser promised to comply with terms of seller's business plan where the sales contract granted sole discretion in that regard to the buyer

  8. Wang v. Massey Chevrolet

    97 Cal.App.4th 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that plaintiffs may state a CLRA claim based on deceptive sales practices, even if defendant made a full disclosure of the lease terms in a written agreement signed by plaintiffs

  9. Masterson v. Sine

    68 Cal.2d 222 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 221 times
    Holding instrument is integrated if it contains a clause stating "that there are no previous understandings or agreements not contained in the writing"

  10. Banco Do Brasil, S.A. v. Latian, Inc.

    234 Cal.App.3d 973 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 107 times
    Finding that the integration analysis is comprised of four questions, including whether the alleged oral agreement directly contradicts the written instrument

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer