To analyze the statutes, precedents, and case law in California regarding Contract, Breach of Contract, Broken Promise, and Business Law, we will examine the relevant sections of the California Civil Code and review key court decisions. Please note that I am an AI language model and cannot provide real-time legal research. Therefore, it is essential to consult with a qualified attorney or legal professional for up-to-date information and advice tailored to your specific situation.
1. Written Contract and Breach of Contract in California:
In California, written contracts are governed by the California Civil Code, specifically Sections 1622 to 1633.2. The general principles of contract law apply, including the requirement of mutual assent, offer and acceptance, consideration, and the duty to perform as promised. Additionally, the California Civil Code section 3300 provides that liquidated damages may be awarded for a breach of contract when it is challenging to determine the actual harm suffered.
To establish a claim for breach of contract, you must generally show:
– Existence of a valid contract (oral or written)
– Plaintiff performed or was excused from performance
– Defendant failed to perform as required by the contract
– Plaintiff suffered harm
– The defendant’s breach of the contract caused the harm
Case law:
– Meihaus v. San Francisco Unified School District (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1435
– Bradford v. Dowling (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1185
2. Written Contract, Advertising, and Broken Promise in California:
When an advertisement contains specific terms, and an individual relies on those terms to enter into a written contract, the advertisement may be viewed as an offer, and the contract is formed upon acceptance. California courts apply objective theory to determine whether a party’s interpretation was reasonable.
Case law:
– Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254
– Atkins v. J.K. Harris & Company, LLC (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 864
3. Pay Me Money Monthly and Reliance on Advertisements in California:
The terms of a contract regarding payment frequency, unless specified, are typically determined by the parties’ agreement. Reliance on advertisements may be relevant to establish a reasonable expectation and the inducement to enter into a contract.
Case law:
– Alpstar Financial Development v. Shelton (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1490
4. Amount That Reasonably Compensates Plaintiff for Harm Caused by Breach, Reasonably Foreseeable At Time of Contract, Prove Amount Due Under Contract, and $225,000:
In California, damages for breach of contract aim to reasonably compensate the non-breaching party for their actual harm. The foreseeability of damages and the burden of proof regarding the amount due under the contract are essential factors in determining the extent of recovery.
Case law:
– Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341
– Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503
– Lurie v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 544
5. I Paid and Got Zero:
If you paid for goods or services but did not receive what you were promised, it may constitute a breach of contract or a violation of consumer protection laws, depending on the circumstances. Seeking legal advice and reviewing the specific contract terms and the surrounding circumstances will be crucial.
Statutes:
– California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
– California Civil Code section 1770 et seq.
Please note that this analysis provides a general overview and may not cover all possible scenarios or recent developments in California law. It is always advisable to consult a qualified attorney regarding your specific situation.