Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco

Procedural Posture Defendant purchaser challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which found in favor of plaintiff seller in the seller's breach of contract action against the purchaser to recover the price of a piano. Overview The seller had her grand piano sent to the purchaser's place of business. After the repairs were completed, the purchaser asked if the seller wished to sell the piano, and she claimed that she did. The parties entered into a short written agreement concerning the sale, but the purchaser never paid the seller any money whatsoever for the piano. The seller was successful in her breach of contract action against the purchaser for the purchase price of the piano, and the purchaser appealed. Upon review, the court held that there was sufficient evidence upon which the trial court's decision was founded. There was no merit to the purchaser's argument that the seller was required to prove the actual authority of the piano salesman to make the contract for the purchaser, as the salesman clearly had ostensible authority to enter into the contract to purchase the piano and the seller was entitled to rely upon his representations. As to the claim that proper notice was served upon the purchaser's attorneys, the court held that it was bound by the determination of the trial court that there was, in fact, sufficient service so that the trial court was with jurisdiction to proceed to trial. Outcome: ada defense attorney The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Procedural Posture Plaintiff, a supplier of linens, brought an action against defendant, a customer using the linen service, for the customer's failure to return linens supplied under a written contract. The customer challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which awarded damages to the supplier after allowing the admission of evidence under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1953e- 1953h. Overview The parties transacted business pursuant to written contracts during a three-year period. Tags were prepared by the supplier indicating the number of pieces of linen supplied and returned. Sometimes the customer signed the tag, but a copy was always left with the customer. The contracts provided that the tags were deemed correct regarding the number of articles provided unless objection was made. No objection had been made. The question on appeal was whether business records kept in such manner and accepted by both parties over a period of years were admissible under the Act as a business records exception to the

hearsay rule. In affirming, the court relied on case law for the proposition that records kept in the general course of business usually were accurate and could be used, in case of necessity, as evidence of the matter recorded. The court distinguished authorities relied upon by the customer on the basis that those authorities involved suits on book accounts. Whether or not the tags were properly identified as complete or correct statements of the deliveries was a question for the trial court. No evidence was presented requiring a rejection of the tags into evidence. Outcome The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.