Stanchfield

Stanchfield v. Hamer Toyota, Inc.

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 835·37 Cal. App. 4th 1495·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 565·44 Cal. Rptr. 565·95 Daily Journal DAR 11625
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 25, 1995B082481California3,841 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brandlin, J.

On August 5,1991, plaintiff Philip Stanchfield filed suit against Hamer Toyota, Inc., and other defendants (referred to collectively as Hamer Toyota) seeking damages for breach of an employment agreement and specific performance of a stock purchase agreement. His complaint also included other causes of action which are not pertinent here.

The matter proceeded to trial on September 15,1993. At the conclusion of the evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict on his breach of contract cause of action, urging he had been summarily discharged on August 9, 1990, without the written notice required by the employment agreement. The trial court granted the motion and submitted the issue of damages to the jury. It returned a special verdict awarding appellant $130,000 as a result of Hamer Toyota’s breach. Immediately thereafter, the trial court was asked to order Hamer Toyota to specifically perform on the stock purchase agreement. It declined to do so. Appellant has appealed from the judgment entered after trial.

Facts

In 1987, appellant became the general manager of Hamer Toyota, where he had previously worked as a salesman and a finance manager. The following year,…

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.