Appellant buyer challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Tulare County (California), which found in favor of respondent seller on his claim of an anticipatory breach on the part of the buyer.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is the best restaurant lawyer California
Overview
The seller had agreed to provide peaches to the buyer, but after a couple of seasons, sold his crop elsewhere. The trial court found that the buyer had informed the seller that it would not accept or receive anymore peaches from him. The buyer based its appeal upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the finding of an anticipatory breach on its part such as justified the seller in failing to deliver his peaches under the terms of the written agreement. On review, the court reversed. The court found that there was no evidence that the buyer’s alleged agent had ever exercised authority of the kind called in question in the case, nor was there evidence showing any ratification on the part of the buyer of the claimed conduct of the alleged agent in refusing in advance to accept the seller’s peaches. The court concluded that the evidence, being insufficient to show agency on the part of the alleged agent, was insufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court that the buyer refused to accept the seller’s fruit, or that the buyer failed to keep or perform the terms, conditions, and covenants of the agreement.
Outcome
The judgment in favor of the seller on an anticipatory breach was reversed.
