Harris

Harris v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 4th 70·17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 649·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 251·93 Daily Journal DAR 3265·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1835
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 11, 1993F015046California4,587 words

Opinion

Opinion

Best, J.

The novel issue presented by this appeal is whether a Tameny cause of action for breach of a contract in violation of public policy exists outside the employment situation. We conclude it does not.

Statement of the Case

Appellant David B. Harris appeals from the judgment entered on his lawsuit against Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and ARCO’s cross-complaint against him. Appellant claimed ARCO mistreated him during his operation of an ARCO “am/pm minimarket” under a written franchise agreement by failing to repair and refurbish his unit as promised in retaliation for his failure to comply with ARCO’s pricing dictates and his report of an underground gasoline leak to the authorities. He sought compensatory and punitive damages on five causes of action: (1) breach of written contract, (2) tortious breach of written contract in violation of public policy, (3) breach of oral contract, (4) bad faith denial of the existence of the oral contract, and (5) fraud.

ARCO cross-complained for compensatory and punitive damages for appellant’s failure to report food sales which deprived ARCO of royalties to which it was contractually entitled.

After a four-week trial, the jury…

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.