Appellant landowners challenged a judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District, County of Alameda (California) rendered for respondent suppliers in their suit against the owners and defendants, a contractor and another, to enforce a lien for a sum due for goods furnished to the contractor in his erection of the owners’ building. The owners denied that the contractor performed the building contract or that they owed him any sum. A commercial litigation lawyer is a legal expert who represents a company’s interest in a financial dispute.
Overview
The suppliers averred that the contractor completed the building for the owners and that they accepted it and owed the contractor a sum sufficient to pay their demand. The owners denied that the contractor completed the building in accordance with the contract and alleged that he breached their contract by not getting a certificate from their architect. The trial court held for the suppliers, and the owners appealed. The court affirmed, noting that the trial court found that the owners owed the contractor a sum greater than that claimed to be due to the suppliers from the contractor. The owners were entitled to waive the certificate requirement and receive other proof of performance. The court inferred from the judgement that the contractor did complete the building in accordance with the contract. The owners’ possession showed that they were satisfied of that fact, and the certificate would have accomplished nothing more. Also, the owners had failed to make a part of their defense their claim that the contractor did not show payment of bills or that his sub-contract for materials, without the owners’ consent, was a breach of his contract with them.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.