Source: https://ads1.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=B276546&s=CA&d=109618
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:03:42+00:00

Document:
receiving instructions to sell, Hu failed to sell the property.
trustee of the property for Guan’s benefit, and damages.
she made for property-related expenses.
breach, the value of the property, and the award of imputed rent.
We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
we affirm the judgment, Guan’s appeal is moot.
the sale of the house within six months after Chen’s instruction.
nothing about selling the house.
take any steps to sell it.
alleging breach of a written contract, fraud, and other claims.
did not include any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation.
section 1689, subdivision (b)(2). The court denied Hu’s motion.
challenging or contradicting the terms of the written agreement.
or not the Contract required [Hu] to sell the property.” (Fn.
damages based on fraud in the inducement.
motion for leave to amend to conform to proof.
relief based on Hu’s breach of the contract. We disagree.
allegation of Hu’s fraudulent intent.
the property as instructed; and Hu’s breach caused Guan harm.
of Hu’s fraudulent intent asserted in the fifth cause of action.
therefore, is irrelevant to the merits of the first cause of action.
a material failure of consideration. (Id., subd. (b)(2); Wyler v.
the house once instructed. . . . [W]e’re seeking breach of contract.
limine did not alter the nature of Guan’s first cause of action.
rescission claim and the fraudulent inducement claim.
allege breach of contract, and the court was aware of it.
suggested in connection with the prayer for relief.” (McDonald v.
regardless of its label or the remedies he sought.
ruling. The trial court’s inherent power to do so is well-settled.
(See Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107; Kerns v.
how obvious its error or how draconian the effects of its misstep.
legal principle—that interim orders constitute final judgments.
is terminated and may not be revived.’ ” (Conc. & dis. opn.
to interim, interlocutory rulings. (See Imperial Beverage Co. v.
court sustains a demurrer without leave to amend to that claim.
was filed in bad faith or for an improper purpose. (See Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 128.5, 128.7; cf. Janis v. California State Lottery Com.
resurrection, which she did more than once.
damages based upon Hu’s breach. We conclude that it could.
remedies may be asserted in the same action. (§ 1692; Wong v.
“ ‘election of one bars recovery under the other.’ ” (Conc. & dis.
prevailed on his rescission claim on that basis. (Conc. & dis.
opn. post, at p. 10.) First, the trial court made no such finding.
indisputably in play in the fourth amended complaint.
Inc. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1166; Eisenberg et al., Cal.
Hu also challenges particular provisions of the judgment.
We address each in turn.
profit by her wrongdoing. We agree.
waived any claim of error by not asserting it timely.
Motion for Leave to Amend Is Moot.
Outcome: The amended judgment is affirmed. Guan is awarded his costs on appeal.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.