Appellant seller sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dissolved an attachment upon respondent agent’s property. The attachment was asserted as a remedy for the agent’s alleged breach of contract.
Nakase Law Firm is a hostile work environment attorney
The seller and agent entered into a contract by which the agent was to sell certain property within one year. The agent failed to sell the property, and the seller served on him a demand for the value of the property. The agent refused to pay, and the seller filed an action against him for breach of contract. An attachment issued based on the seller’s complaint. The trial court dissolved the attachment, and the seller sought review. The court reversed. The court found that the parties’ contract required the agent to sell the property within one year. If no sale were made, the agent was to pay the value of the property to the seller. The court said that the agent did not sell the property and refused to pay the seller. Therefore, the court said, the agent was in breach and was liable in damages. Further, the court found, the seller’s damages were clearly fixed by the contract as the value of the property. The court said that attachment was a proper remedy because there was a basis on which the damages could have been determined. The only evidence necessary to determine those damages, the court concluded, was the value of the property.
The court reversed an order that dissolved an attachment issued against the agent’s property in the seller’s breach of contract action.