HS PERLIN CO. INC. v. Morse Signal Devices

Caution
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 400·209 Cal. App. 3d 1289·258 Cal. Rptr. 1
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 26, 1989Docket Nos. D005468, D006265, D006231California10,749 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Huffman, J.

I concur in the result based upon Berlin’s intentional failure to read the provisions of the Morse contract.

A petition for a rehearing was denied May 15, 1989, and appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 12, 1989.

Lead Opinion

Benke, J.

In these consolidated appeals, the owner of a stamp and coin store and its consignors appeal from a judgment awarding the store owner $250 as the liquidated damages caused by the negligence of an alarm company. Because we find the disputed liquidated damage clause is enforceable, we affirm the judgment.

Factual Summary

On or about December 4, 1974, plaintiff H. S. Perlin, Inc. (Perlin), and defendant Morse Signal Devices of San Diego (Morse) entered into a written contract under which Morse agreed to provide burglar and fire alarm service to Perlin’s coin and stamp store. The terms of the contract are set forth in a two-page printed form provided by Morse to its customers. The first page of the contract has a number of blank spaces in which the equipment Morse agreed to install at Perlin’s store is described in longhand. The $50 per month fee Perlin was required to pay Morse is also set forth in longhand on the first page. Herbert S. Perlin signed the contract on behalf of the corporation. Paragraph 4 of the contract is on the first page of the contract inmediately above the signature lines. Paragraph 4 is printed in bold type with red underlining and states: “(4)…

Opinion

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

BENKE, J.

In these consolidated appeals, the owner of a stamp and coin store and its consignors appeal from a judgment awarding the store owner $250 as the liquidated damages caused by the negligence of an alarm company. Because we find the disputed liquidated damage clause is enforceable, we affirm the judgment.

On or about December 4, 1974, plaintiff H.S. Perlin, Inc. (Perlin), and defendant Morse Signal Devices of San Diego (Morse) entered into a written contract under which Morse agreed to provide burglar and fire alarm service to Perlin's coin and stamp store. The terms of the contract are set forth in a two-page printed form provided by Morse to its customers. The first page of the contract has a number of blank spaces in which the equipment Morse agreed to install at Perlin's store is described in longhand. The $50 per month fee Perlin was required to pay Morse is also set forth in longhand on the first page. Herbert S. Perlin signed the contract on behalf of the corporation. Paragraph 4 of the contract is on the first page of the contract inmediately above the signature lines. Paragraph 4 is printed in bold type…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.