Legal Question in Business Law in California

Here are two:

Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 454 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 427; 904 P.2d 834]

Consolidated World Investments, Inc. v. Lido Preferred Ltd. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 373 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 524]

Now are you happy? What are you going to with them?

It would really be helpful to know more about the specific issue(s) you are dealing with. Very different rules apply to cases regarding sales of goods versus provision of services, for example. Using "contract" "vague price term" and "part performance" as search terms in WestLaw produced the usual 20 most relevant cases, and they are dated rather uniformly between 1870 and 1993.

There are NO reported California cases containing all three of the following: "contract" "vague price" and "part performance."

I can say, as a general rule, that courts will go to some length to find a fair price based on part performance, especially in the sale of goods. If a buyer of copper ingots pays London warehouse prices plus 25% for the first 1/3 of shipments under a contract, for example, it will be expected to pay on the same basis for the balance of the shipments, even though the contract only says "a fair price," or maybe even nothing at all.

It's much harder in most services contracts than in most sales contracts to peg a price based on part performance. Further, the Uniform Commercial Code encourages courts to fill in the blanks in contracts for the sale of goods, whereas, at least traditionally, courts have tended to say "there is no contract" if there wasn't a price term or formula in a contract for services. That is changing to a degree, but it remains uncertain and difficult.

Send me some more facts, and I'll try to find you a couple recent and relevant cases. [email protected]