Defendant seller challenged an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which vacated its previous order dissolving a writ of attachment. Plaintiff buyer brought three causes of action for fraud and deceit, breach of contract, and money had and received.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are San Diego restaurant attorneys
The seller argued that the attachment should have been dissolved, because the action for breach of contract did not fall within that class of cases in which attachment would issue, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 537, because it was an action on a contract to do something other than pay money, to deliver goods and services. The court found that an attachment would issue on an implied-in-law or quasi-contract action, to recover money paid under a contract, on failure of consideration even though there was no rescission by the buyer or rescission of the contract specifically pleaded. However, the court found that in addition to the alleged failure of consideration, there was also a showing of the buyer’s rescission of the oral contract by his conduct. The court concluded that the breach of contract action met the statutory requirements and would support an attachment despite the joinder of other causes of action on which attachment could not be had.
The court affirmed the order of the trial court.