Gifford

Gifford v. J & a HOLDINGS

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 345·54 Cal. App. 4th 996·63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 253·97 Daily Journal DAR 5547·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3218
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1997B099094California4,391 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

Plaintiff William Gifford (plaintiff) sold produce on credit to Salad Works. Salad Works sold all its assets to defendant J & A Holdings, a California corporation (J & A). The Bulk Sales Law (Cal. U. Com. Code, § 6101 et seq.) required that, in order to protect creditors of Salad Works, notice of the intended sale be published and recorded at least 12 business days prior to the sale. (§§ 6104, 6105.) Contending that J & A failed to comply with the notice requirements, plaintiff brought this action for damages (§ 6107, subd. (a)) to recover from J & A $72,000 still owed to plaintiff by Salad Works. Following nonjury trial upon stipulated facts and brief testimony, the trial court rendered judgment for J & A. The court concluded J & A complied with the notice requirements or in the alternative made a good faith and commercially reasonable effort to comply. (§ 6107, subd. (c).) We reverse. The notice was recorded less than 12 business days before the date of anticipated sale specified in the notice. We conclude this was defective notice, and the attempt to cure the defect by merely postponing, without notice, the closing of escrow was not a commercially…

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.