Appellant sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Kern County, (California), which denied appellant’s motion for a new trial. Appellant’s motion was on the evidence of a trade custom should not have been considered by the jury.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are Los Angeles incorporation lawyers
Appellant filed breach of contract actions against respondent for potatoes, alleging that it had not received the required amount. Respondent won at trial, appellant moved for a new trial, and was denied. Appellant sought review and the court held that because the contracts in question were silent about the applicability of the usage and custom, evidence of such usage and custom was admissible to explain the meaning of the quantity figures. Because the credibility of the witnesses and the meaning to be given to contradictory inferences arising from evidence extrinsic to the terms of a written contract were for the trier of fact, a factual question was created for the jury as to whether the parties intended to exclude the custom from the contract. Hence, the court concluded that the lower court properly admitted the evidence of usage and custom to explain the meaning of the quantity figures in the contracts. Thus, the judgment was affirmed.
Where the contracts in question were silent about the applicability of the usage and custom, evidence of such usage and custom was admissible to explain the meaning of the quantity figures, and the court affirmed the lower court’s admission of such evidence.