Appellant sought reversal of the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco

 

Procedural Posture

Appellant sought reversal of the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which was rendered in favor of respondents on its causes of action for conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets and disclosure of confidential information.

 

Overview: What is the meaning of slander of title california

 

Plaintiff challenged the jury instructions in its breach of confidence action. The parties' agreement gave respondent a right to use or disclose information without limitation. Plaintiff alleged defendant breached the covenant of confidentiality by sharing its proprietary forms with its competitors. On appeal, the court concluded that no reversible error was committed. There were some trivial imperfections in the jury instruction, but these were matters of semantics not substance. The trial court's use of phrase "substantially secret" to refer to confidential information did not amount to an error of law and could not have confused jury. Also, the failure of breach of confidence instruction that informed the jury that defendant's knowledge of confidential nature of information could be proved by circumstantial evidence was not prejudicial in light of the separate instruction imparting the same legal principle to the jury. Also, the phrase, "with the understanding and in agreement," in context of the whole instruction, did not lead the jury to believe that appellant's breach of confidence action demanded proof of the contract.

 

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error was committed. While there were some imperfections in the jury instructions, they were matters of semantics, not substance.

Procedural Posture

Appellant property owners sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California), which entered findings and judgment on the property owners' complaint against appellee purchaser, and entered separate findings on a receiver's report. The property owners had filed an action to terminate a contract of sale, quiet title, and appoint a receiver, as well as for monies due on promissory notes.

 

Overview:

A purchaser filed a cross-complaint with regard to a contract for the sale of property he had entered into with property owners. A receiver had been appointed after the property owners claimed the buyer had defaulted under the purchase agreement. The trial court determined that the purchaser was entitled to a decree of specific performance on the contract. The court held, inter alia, that the portion of the judgment that fixed liability upon the owners under a theory of vicarious liability for the conduct of the receiver was improper and constituted reversible error, while it sustained that part of the judgment that terminated the receivership and discharged the receiver. The court ruled that the trial court properly denied the receiver attorney's fees for services rendered after the appointment of the receiver because the attorney also was attorney for the property owners. Further, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings that the owners had waived the requirement of strict compliance with the provision regarding prompt payment, and had not given notice of its reimposition prior to the filing of the complaint.

 

Outcome

The court reversed in part the judgment awarding specific performance to the purchaser, affirmed in part, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.