Harmon v. Abdulzahra CA4/2

facts, a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial

court. If such substantial evidence be found, it is of no consequence that the trial court

believing other evidence, or drawing other reasonable inferences, might have reached a

contrary conclusion. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 873-874.)

We apply the substantial evidence rule to the trial court’s determination of the

factual issues in this case.

FACTS

Defendant owned property adjacent to Highway 74 in Lake Elsinore. He planned

to improve the vacant land by constructing a car wash and other buildings. In April 2009,

defendant entered into a grading contract with plaintiff. The contract called for rough

grading on the project for a price of $21,875. Payments were to be made in four

installments at unspecified times. The contract specifically lists grading of 290 feet of

keyway, 15 feet wide and two feet deep. Subsequently, defendant signed a change order

for the keyway, which contained hourly and daily rates for equipment needed for three to

five days of work.

The parties agree that the contract was breached. Plaintiff testified that, after a

disagreement on May 21, 2009,…