Arrow Flying Service, Inc. v. Universal Flyers Ground School
Before: Drapeau
[50]
DRAPEAU, J.
Demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint was overruled, defendants filed their answer, and the case was called for trial. Objection was sustained to the introduction Of evidence on the ground that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. From the judgment which followed plaintiff appeals.
The complaint alleges that on March 28, 1947, plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement by which defendants were to furnish to plaintiff ground school instruction for plaintiff’s students; that on August 16, 1947, defendants refused to proceed further under the terms of the contract, and ever since that time have refused to comply with it; that 19 of plaintiff’s students required ground school instruction, which defendants refused to give, to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $205 for each student; that if said students had been so taught plaintiff would have received $196 additional for each of them—all to plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $5,463.
At the time the contract was entered into the plaintiff corporation was not in existence. The contract was between Arrow Flying Service, a partnership, and defendants. The corporation was formed 10 or 12 days afterwards; but the parties complied with its terms for a time.
The contract was signed only by one person, Mr. John E. Monroe for the defendants.
The reporter’s transcript indicates that the trial judge sustained the demurrer primarily because he felt that on its face it showed lack of mutuality.
The contract reads as follows:
“Arrow Flying Service, herein known as the first party, and Universal Flyers Ground School herein known as the second party, enter into the following agreement:
“The first party agrees to pay the second party
70$
(seventy cents) per student hour for the number of hours of ground school instruction prescribed by the curriculum of the course in which their students are enrolled.
“The second party shall be the exclusive source for textbooks, supplies and equipment needed in the conduct of the course. The cost of which is not to be included in the above mentioned figure.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)