In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000.
There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement.
It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000.
The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.
There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement.
It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000.
The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.
The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called "discovery"). But the appeals court didn't buy it. Nor did it buy allegations the defendant made about supposed wrongdoing by the plaintiff:
It's always best to have such agreements in writing. Of course, maybe these guys were (now former) friends, and something in writing would've been awkward. At the least, I would've written "Loan" in the memo section of the check.
The defendant's unsupported, vague, and conclusory allegations of alleged wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiff or a company affiliated with the plaintiff were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.
Where there is a "triable issue of fact", a court cannot grant a motion for summary judgment; it must deny the motion and let a jury decide the issue at trial.
Comments
Post a Comment