The subcontractor prejudgment interest

Plaintiff subcontractor and defendant general contractor appealed a judgment entered by the Superior Court of San Diego County, California, on their respective actions arising from a construction subcontract. The business dispute lawyer trial court awarded the subcontractor prejudgment interest on its liquidated contract claims and awarded the general contractor damages for glass replacement and further amounts to repair other property damages the subcontractor caused.

The subcontractor had sued the general contractor for breach of contract and related counts. The general contractor had cross-complained against the subcontractor for breach of contract and related counts and negligence. The court found that even if the trial court had intended to award property damages for negligence as opposed to breach of contract, the general contractor was entitled to a setoff of its entire award. Both parties had claims against each other under the subcontract, and thus setoff served the interests of justice and the purposes of the prejudgment interest statute, Civ. Code, § 3287. Because the general contractor's award exceeded the subcontractor's award, even after an adjustment to the general contractor's award for the cleanup contribution, the subcontractor could not recover any prejudgment interest. Visit one of the san diego employment attorneys who know about business employment laws.

The court reversed the judgment insofar as it awarded the subcontractor prejudgment interest on its liquidated contract claims and awarded the general contractor damages for a cleanup contribution. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects. The court also affirmed the order denying the subcontractor penalty interest. Plaintiff holder of a power of attorney sought review of a decision from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, Santa Clara County (California), which entered judgment in favor of defendant attorney in action to have the attorney declared the trustee as to the profit made on a partition sale and to have obtained a judgment for the amount.

The holder had a power of attorney to determine the rights to property. The holder employed the attorney. The land was partitioned. The holder brought an action to have the attorney declared the trustee as to the profit made on the partition sale and to obtain a judgment for the amount. Judgment was entered in favor of the attorney. On appeal, the court stated that there was sufficient evidence to have sustained the finding that in employing the attorney in the action for partition the holder acted for himself as to the interest which he claimed in the ranch and as agent for the family. Assuming that to be fact the relation of attorney and client did not exist between the attorney and holder by virtue of that employment as to the interest in the land then owned by the seller that afterward conveyed her interest in the land to the attorney. It did not appear that the attorney was entrusted with the power to have negotiated with the family for the purchase or had acted in any other capacity than as advisor in relation to the legal effect of the power of attorney. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.