Legal Question in Business Law in California

Re: Several questions

1) Breach of contract - There are shelves full of treatises and decided cases in whichbreach of contract is debated. Generally any failure of a party to perform a condition or covenant of a contract when performance is due would constitute a breach. However, breaches come in all degrees of materiality. Trivial breaches are no longer considered ground for the other party to withhold its performance or to sue for damages. There was a case where an Illinois farmer was foreclosed on because he was a day late and a dollar short on the 115th mortgage payment out of 180. That was in 1885; it couldn't happen today. So, breach of contract is sort of like sin; it comes in mortal and venal sizes and is sometimes hard to delineate.

2) Could be either; fraudulent misrepresentation is sort of the civil analogue of the crime of false pretenses. May depend on when the valet formed the intent to mistreat the property. However, the incident would best be charged as negligence, thus doing away with the thorny intent issues.

3) Maliciious prosecution - One year - Code of Civil Procedure section 340 (and case law saying that 340 controls).

More later.

Re: Several questions

You are a busy little bee, arn't you. And each one so litigious. My curiosity is really up so I have one for you first, are you an attorney who didn't go to many Law school classes or just a person who is persecuted on a regular, contiguous basis. So many questions and basically no answers. I have been teaching for 30 years at law schools, graduate schools in doctorate and masters degrees as well as undergraduate school classes. And I could just imagine you sitting there with your hand raised high contiguouslya the brain of the professor. Very interesting, but as Artie Johnson once said, all screwed up!!! One set of facts, multiple claims, interpretation of statutes through caselaw, just the way it is and that's all folks.

Re: Several questions

I'm going to give you some good advice. Stop. You don't know what you are talking about and you should have trusted your attorney. You are mad, but I assure you, you will waste your energy, time, and money trying to unsuccessfully enforce your nonsense. What are your actual facts?

Sounds to me that your car was damaged by a valet. That's negligence and they should reimburse you for your damage if you are lucky. Maybe not. That's it. Fraud, false pretenses? Legal malpractice... going after your lawyer too eh? Wow. Why? because he told you it wasn't fraud? or because you lost the fraud claim? There was no fraud claim. Going after the city too eh? Wow. Don't forget to sue Bush and Kerry and Kobe. That way you can throw all of your time and money away.

1) Breach of contract means you didn't perform. 100 of pages of code dedicated to the topic. You sound ignorant and confrontational. 2) Only if he intended to crash the car, otherwise I think it is just negligence. 3) I'm going to stop here, you want to sue an attorney with your mixed up ideas and general anger at every attorney's opinion regarding breach of contract? He will counter sue you and take everything you own. You can give me his number, I'd be happy to represent him.