Croeni

Croeni v. Goldstein

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1·21 Cal. App. 4th 754·26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412·94 Daily Journal DAR 261·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 168
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 1994A058727California2,014 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

Plaintiffs/appellants David Croeni et al., appeal a judgment on the pleadings against them in their fraud action against defendant/ respondent Jeffrey S. Goldstein. Appellants contend the court erroneosly ruled they were not entitled to recover lost profits under Civil Code section 3343 against respondent, whose fraudulent misrepresentations induced them to sell their business to others. We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

Pursuant to a written agreement executed October 26, 1987, appellants sold their label printing business to Alford Industries, Incorporated (Alford) and its parent corporation, Kane Industries, Incorporated (Kane). Respondent was an officer of Alford and represented it during the sale negotiations. As part of the sales price Alford agreed to pay appellants a specified amount for “machinery and equipment,” plus additional sums if the cumulative net sales to the “clientele accounts” exceeded a specified amount between November 1, 1987, and October 31, 1989. It also agreed to pay appellants a specified percentage of the net sales price “of all orders invoiced and collected from the ‘clientele accounts’ ” during the five-year period commencing…

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.