Legal Question in Business Law in California

It's hard to answer your question without knowing what the written contract says. Generally, though, the fact that you had a good reason to breach your contract does not matter. You should have done your due diligence before you signed rather than after. That you waited is your fault, not the other doctor's.

But whether you breached is only part of the analysis. The other part is how to fairly compensate the other doctor for your breach. The terms of the written agreement can make a big difference here. You might have to pay everything you promised to pay. There may be grounds on which you would have to pay less. On the other hand, there may be reasons why you should have to pay more.

You should have a lawyer review the agreement and go over the facts with you. That's the only way to get a reliable answer to your question.

I'm not 100% in agreement with Mr. Hoffman. Full disclosure of all relevant facts is obviously not an essential for all contracts; if it were, most stock-market trades would never occur. Differences in information are commonplace in contracting. On the other hand, the old rule of "caveat emptor" has given way, to a certain extent, to a duty to disclose certain known, relevant facts. Otherwise, there is probably actionable fraud in the formation of the contract. An office-sharing, advertising-sharing agreement between MDs is not just a simple sublease of commercial space. It has aspects of a partnership. I think there is a pretty good chance that a court, upon a proper showing of evidence and a cogent argument, would find that failure to disclose the lawsuits and perhaps other problems was material and that your backing out of the agreement was permissible.

Mr. Whipple makes a good point, though I'm not entirely convinced. Our disagreement may be due to the incomplete information you provided. You told us that the other doctor "had been involved in 14 other lawsuits", but you didn't say what that involvement was. Was he the defendant in all of them? If so, how many did he lose? Were they malpractice cases (doctors can be sued for all sorts of things -- including breaching a rental agreement)?

If he has a history of repeated, proven malpractice, that might indeed be something he was required to disclose. But if he was sued for, say, not paying his bills on time, then he likely had no duty to reveal this fact to you. And if he was "involved" in these cases as the plaintiff, as a witness or in some other capacity, it is even less likely that his silence justified your actions.