![]() When they went to the Coronado Cays development, they were advised by an employee of Coronado Landmark that it was necessary for them to sign another contract before construction of their house could start. The Walkers returned to Coronado on August 18, 1972. 1 He requested a specific date for completion to be set out in the contract. Walker was aware of the necessity for construction to be completed within the period which would permit a deferral of all or substantially all of the capital gains tax which would otherwise fall due because of the sale of his first residence. ![]() Frederick had filled in the terms of the sale in the blanks of the form contract including the statement, "Home to be completed by December 31, 1972." Mr. The contract was approved on July 21, 1972, by Jack Conover, a vice president and director of sales and marketing of Coronado Landmark. They gave their check for $1,000 to Charles Frederick, who acknowledged receipt on behalf of Coronado Cay Company and Signal Landmark, whom he believed to be its general partner. On July 16, 1972, they signed a contract to buy a house for $77,400 in the Coronado Cays development in Coronado. The Walkers sold their residence in Northern California on October 18, 1971, as part of their program to relocate in the San Diego area after Mr. We approach our task keeping in mind that all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the judgment and all reasonable inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict. The defendants Coronado Landmark and Signal Landmark contend there is insufficient evidence to support that judgment. The Walkers' breach of contract claim is based on the building construction contract of August 18, 1972, and is premised on the untimely completion of the residence. The Signal Landmark and Coronado Landmark Appeal After our examination of issues raised in both appeals, we conclude the judgment for compensatory damages should be modified and merged into a single judgment of $8,414 and, except as so modified, all judgments should be affirmed. Walkers appeal from the judgment of nonsuit in favor of Signal and Sanders. A judgment of nonsuit was entered for Conover on the first cause of action and Signal and Sanders on all causes of action.Ĭoronado Landmark and Signal Landmark appeal from the judgments for breach of contract, fraud and punitive damages. Walker on her cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress against Coronado Landmark, Signal Landmark and Conover, and in favor of all defendants on her cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. ![]() A judgment in the sum of $400 was rendered for Mrs. Punitive damages of $100,000 were imposed against Coronado Landmark and $115,000 against Signal Landmark. After a jury trial, judgments in the sum of $11.928 and $5,000 were entered in favor of the Walkers against Coronado Landmark and Signal Landmark on the breach of contract and fraud causes of action respectively. Walker sued for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. and Jack Conover (Conover) for breach of contract and fraud. This case centers around the written contract for the construction of a house in the residential development, Coronado Cays, between Coronado Landmark, Inc., as contractor, and plaintiffs W. Victor Antonla for Defendants and Appellants. Ross and William McCurine, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. (Opinion by Wiener, J., with Brown (Gerald), P.J., and Staniforth, J., concurring.) SIGNAL COMPANIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. WALKER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |