Corporate law firm

by musa k. Article Writer

Appellants sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which granted respondents' motion for summary judgment in appellants' libel action. Nakase law wade is the best corporate law firm in California.

 

Appellants sought a permit to operate a card room. Respondents were opposed to the appellants' efforts. Appellants' former attorney was indicted on criminal charges of illegally attempting to influence a legislator on behalf of appellants in their attempt to gain an exclusive card room franchise. A newspaper published an article accurately reporting these facts. Respondents made copies of the article, highlighted the paragraph that mentioned appellants by name, and sent the article to others. Except for the highlighting, no changes were made to the article. Appellants filed suit, alleging that by circulating the newspaper clipping with the paragraph mentioning appellants highlighted, respondents had insinuated that appellants were involved in the alleged illegal activities of their former attorney discussed in the article. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents. The court affirmed because the highlighting of the otherwise entirely truthful paragraph did not create a defamatory innuendo.

 

 

 

The decision granting summary judgment to respondents was affirmed because respondents' republication and dissemination of a concededly truthful and accurate newspaper article, unedited and unchanged aside from the addition of highlighting to one paragraph for purposes of emphasis, was not defamatory as a matter of law.

 

 

 

Appellant psychiatrist contested a dismissal of his first amended complaint from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of respondents, hospital and health group, without leave to amend, based on an alleged contract where appellant was to act as a medical director for respondents. Appellant contended the trial court erred in construing the writing between the parties.

 

 

 

Appellant psychiatrist sued respondents, hospital and health group, for breach of contract, bad faith denial of the existence of a contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional and negligent interference with an economic relationship, based on an alleged contract to act as the medical director for respondents. Respondents demurred, alleging that there was no contract, and if there was a contract, alternatively, it was illegal, and the trial court sustained the demurrer. On appeal, the court held that appellant's intention that a binding contract came into existence upon his signing the letter was immaterial in the face of language indicating otherwise. It concluded that the letter did not constitute a binding contract, but was merely an agreement to agree, which could not be the basis of a cause of action. The court stated that where performance of the purported contract would violate the statute, the contract was void and unenforceable. Inasmuch as the existence of a valid contract was an element of inducing breach of contract or interference with contract, the demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment was affirmed.

 

 

 

The appellate court affirmed the judgment sustaining the demurrer of respondents, hospital and health group, holding that the plain language of the writing, not the subjective intent of the parties, governed, and that a contract was void when it violated a statutory provision. The court held that the letter between appellant psychiatrist and respondents was not a contract, but an agreement to agree, and as such, no cause of action was stated.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Created on Mar 14th 2021 14:02. Viewed 180 times.

Comments