Runyan v. Pacific Air Industries, Inc.

2 Cal.3d 304 (1970)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Pacific (D) was a corporation engaged in aerial surveying and photogrammetric services. In 1965, Runyan (P) was a geologist and engineer employed by Tidewater. n October he responded to an ad placed by D in the Wall Street Journal for franchise territories in California. Eventually, in March 1966, P and D entered into a written contract for which P paid $25,000 to be an exclusive photogrammetric franchise in the counties of Inyo, Kern, Kings, and Tulare. P had resigned his position with Tidewater on February 18, 1966. Almost immediately, D did not live up to its end of the bargain. P complained that D was making charges for first order instrument work at arbitrary rates. On October 7, 1966, P gave D written notice of rescission based on fraud and failure of consideration. P sued for restitution and consequential damages. The trial court found in favor of P on his first count for rescission for failure of consideration but not on his other three counts for rescission for fraud nor for a common count of money lent. The trial court found that P was entitled to recover the franchise free and his net consequential damages in the sum of $5,273.25. Those net fees are listed on page 634 Rendlemen 6^th edition. This appeal followed.