Hays

Brunswick Corp. v. Hays

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 3d 134·1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1570·93 Cal. Rptr. 635
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 19, 1971Civ. 37209California1,462 words

Opinion

Opinion

Compton, J.

Defendant Hays appeals from a judgment rendered against him and in favor of plaintiff Brunswick Corporation on a contract of guaranty.

The amount of the judgment which is $90,056 represents the difference between the amount obtained as a result of a resale of bowling equipment after repossession under a conditional sales contract and the amount due and owing on the note secured by said conditional sales contract. Defendant was an individual guarantor of the note.

The single issue on appeal is the interpretation and effect of a limitation clause in the contract of guaranty. That limitation reads as follows:

The facts are not in dispute. In 1965, Cochise Bowl, Inc., an Arizona corporation, purchased from Brunswick Corporation 16 bowling lanes and related equipment including automatic pinsetters, all at the purchase price of $239,056. The terms of said purchase were $2,000 down payment with the balance represented by a promissory note and conditional sales contract. Said note and contract called for 96 monthly installment payments of $2,469 each, together with 6 percent interest per annum.

As additional security plaintiff requested and defendant executed the individual…

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.