Patel v. Liebermensch (S156797)
I did not go out on any limbs when writing about this decision so you will have to take my word for it that I thought it was a close call. The Supreme Court will be addressing the question of whether the time and manner of payment are essential terms for a real estate purchase option contract. If so, then if they are absent no contract has been formed.
This is an important legal issue, but this case is not one that has potential to cause any noticeable effect in the way that real estate transactions are handled in California. The vast majority of such transactions are already conducted much more formally than the transaction that led to this lawsuit.
Showing posts with label review granted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review granted. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Review Roundup II
Fairbanks v. Superior Court (S157001)
When I wrote about this decision I praised it for its thoroughness. It was an issue of first impression but I found the Court of Appeal's four-part statutory interpretation very persuasive. I predicted that the Court of Appeal had resolved forever the question of whether insurance is covered by the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). I was wrong.
On Nov. 14, the Supreme Court granted review on that very question.
When I wrote about this decision I praised it for its thoroughness. It was an issue of first impression but I found the Court of Appeal's four-part statutory interpretation very persuasive. I predicted that the Court of Appeal had resolved forever the question of whether insurance is covered by the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). I was wrong.
On Nov. 14, the Supreme Court granted review on that very question.
Review Roundup I
Hughes v. Pair (S157197)
The Supreme Court has granted review in three of the cases that I have written about on this blawg. Its acceptance of Hughes v. Pair on November 28th is the one that I find satisfying.
In a previous post I promised to explain why FEHA and Title VII case law should not be used to make decisions under Civil Code section 51.9. It turns out that a vastly more qualified authority will address the question of whether FEHA's standards and definitions should be used to evaluate a claim for sexual harassment under Civil Code section 51.9. Obviously, I have already picked a side in this one.
The Supreme Court has granted review in three of the cases that I have written about on this blawg. Its acceptance of Hughes v. Pair on November 28th is the one that I find satisfying.
In a previous post I promised to explain why FEHA and Title VII case law should not be used to make decisions under Civil Code section 51.9. It turns out that a vastly more qualified authority will address the question of whether FEHA's standards and definitions should be used to evaluate a claim for sexual harassment under Civil Code section 51.9. Obviously, I have already picked a side in this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
