Procedural Posture
On Sale
$2.00
$2.00
Appellant seller sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Imperial County (California), which awarded respondent buyer a money judgment and denied appellant's cross claim. Appellant asserted that the trial court erred in permitting respondent's expert witness to testify over objection to custom and usage, respondent breached an implied covenant of good faith, and that certain costs were improperly awarded to respondent.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. employs a Business Attorney Orange County
Overview
Respondent buyer was a corporate grain broker and appellant seller was a wheat grower. The parties contracted in writing for the sale of wheat to be delivered to buyer as it was harvested. The price of the wheat was to be set in the future according to the contract specified formula and appellant accepted the risk of price fluctuation. A dispute arose and respondent was awarded a money judgment and appellant was denied a cross claim. Appellant sought review and asserted that the trial court erred in permitting respondent's expert witness to testify over objection to custom and usage, respondent breached an implied covenant of good faith, and that certain costs were improperly awarded to respondent. On review, the court found that Cal. Com. Code § 2202(a) permitted a trade usage to be put in evidence "as an instrument of interpretation." The court found that the trial court properly admitted the expert's evidence of custom and usage to explain and supplement the pricing term of the contract. The court held that the trial court had discretion to allow respondent, as prevailing party, a reasonable sum to cover the costs of the services of expert witnesses. The judgment was affirmed.
Outcome
The judgment that denied appellant seller's cross claim and awarded respondent buyer money damages was affirmed because trade usage was properly put into evidence as an instrument of interpretation and the expert's evidence of custom and usage to explain and supplement the pricing term of the contract was proper. Also, the trial court had discretion to allow respondent, as prevailing party, sums to recover expert witness expenses.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. employs a Business Attorney Orange County
Overview
Respondent buyer was a corporate grain broker and appellant seller was a wheat grower. The parties contracted in writing for the sale of wheat to be delivered to buyer as it was harvested. The price of the wheat was to be set in the future according to the contract specified formula and appellant accepted the risk of price fluctuation. A dispute arose and respondent was awarded a money judgment and appellant was denied a cross claim. Appellant sought review and asserted that the trial court erred in permitting respondent's expert witness to testify over objection to custom and usage, respondent breached an implied covenant of good faith, and that certain costs were improperly awarded to respondent. On review, the court found that Cal. Com. Code § 2202(a) permitted a trade usage to be put in evidence "as an instrument of interpretation." The court found that the trial court properly admitted the expert's evidence of custom and usage to explain and supplement the pricing term of the contract. The court held that the trial court had discretion to allow respondent, as prevailing party, a reasonable sum to cover the costs of the services of expert witnesses. The judgment was affirmed.
Outcome
The judgment that denied appellant seller's cross claim and awarded respondent buyer money damages was affirmed because trade usage was properly put into evidence as an instrument of interpretation and the expert's evidence of custom and usage to explain and supplement the pricing term of the contract was proper. Also, the trial court had discretion to allow respondent, as prevailing party, sums to recover expert witness expenses.