Ersa Grae Corp. v. Fluor Corp.

Good Law
1 Cal. App. 4th 613·1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1398·2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 288·91 Daily Journal DAR 14909
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 5, 1991B052885California5,380 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Ersa Grae Corporation sued Fluor Corporation for damages for breach of a contract to transfer real property to Ersa Grae. Fluor defended by asserting, among other things, that no contract was formed because all offers had been revoked before Ersa Grae accepted. In a bifurcated trial, a jury found the parties had an enforceable contract and, thereafter, a second jury awarded $13 million to Ersa Grae. Following a series of posttrial motions, the trial court conditionally granted Fluor’s motion for a new trial on the ground the judgment was excessive and ultimately reduced the judgment to $3 million. Fluor appeals from the judgment and Ersa Grae cross-appeals from the order granting a new trial. We affirm the findings that the parties had an enforceable contract which was breached by Fluor but reverse and remand for a new trial on the damage issues.

Facts

Fluor is an international engineering and construction firm based in Irvine, specializing in petrochemical industry projects. In 1985, Fluor decided to construct an office building for its own use in the Docklands area of London, a rundown port undergoing redevelopment. On April 14, 1986, Fluor entered into a written…

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.