Court Opinion

ID: 9857066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:13:55.195042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:57.239587
License: Public Domain

MOORE, P. J., Concurring.
I concur. In view of the challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings with respect to the amount of damage suffered, in affirming, the decision, it should be pointed out that the record contains evidence in support of the damages awarded *717as well as of the misrepresentations made by defendants. The declaration in the findings that by reason of the misrepresentations plaintiff has been damaged is not a finding of fact. To comply with the codal provisions with respect to findings, they must set forth the extent of the detriment suffered by defendant’s wrongful acts, to be followed by a statement of the consequential damages. In this case, the documents attached to the complaint and not denied show that the cost of the fixtures was $2,500 and that the cost of the merchandise was $2,372. The testimony of plaintiff was that Mr. Woodmaney, an agent of defendants, stated to him that they would give him $800 for the fixtures if they took the store back and would allow him 30 per cent of the value of the merchandise. Based upon that evidence, the loss on the fixtures was $1700 while the loss on the merchandise was $1661, making a total of $3,361.60.
Since the measure of damages under section 3343, Civil Code, is the difference between the purchase price and the actual value of the property received plus special damages (Carter v. Carr, 139 Cal. App. 15 [33 Pac. (2d) 852]) it would then appear that the damage suffered by plaintiff was $3,361.60, the difference between the price paid and the true value of the property purchased under the influence of the fraud. This is a loss definitely established. Since the judgment exceeds such loss in the sum of $207, it might be contended that the judgment is not supported to the extent of the last mentioned sum. But since “there is no rule that the injury must be of such a nature that it can be accurately measured in money” (Spreckels v. Gorrill, 152 Cal. 383 [92 Pac. 1011]) and since no request was made of the trial court to modify the judgment, we are in no position to decide that there was a “miscarriage of justice” in the judgment. (Const., art. VI, sec. 4%.) Motion for a new trial was the proper remedy, as suggested in the main opinion.