Herman v. County of Los Angeles

3 Citing cases

  1. Cohen v. Smith

    No. D073787 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "There is nothing unlawful or even unusual about contracting parties agreeing to cross certain bridges when they are reached." (Herman v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 484, 488.) However, "[w]here any of the essential elements of a promise are reserved for the future agreement of both parties, no legal obligation arises 'until such future agreement is made.' "

  2. Hiatt v. Elite Leather Co.

    No. G047977 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2013)

    "[T]he parties in this case elaborated on what they meant by the alternative dispute resolution method they chose," and "[t]hus, . . . the agreement in this case is sufficiently certain to be specifically enforceable." (Id. at p. 736; see also Herman v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 484, 488 [contract requiring parties to subsequently "'meet and reach mutual agreement on the placement'" of certain personnel, enforceable; "There is nothing unlawful or even unusual about contracting parties agreeing to cross certain bridges when they are reached"] fn. omitted.) "Under California law, a contract is enforceable if it is sufficiently definite that a court can ascertain the parties' obligations thereunder and determine whether those obligations have been performed or breached."

  3. County of Alameda v. Superior Court

    No. A121590 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 21, 2009)   Cited 3 times

    Finally, the authorities cited by the County do not support its view that the MOU includes an enforceable contract for security services, as in each case the County relies upon as precedent, the contract at issue omitted only nonessential terms. (See City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 433 [stating general rule that no legal obligation arises if essential element is reserved for the future agreement but finding parties had agreed on essential terms; contract to exchange properties, erect stadium and procure transfer of the Dodgers baseball franchise from Brooklyn to Los Angeles]; Herman v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 484, 488 [same; contract for police services]; Okun v. Morton (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 805, 817-818 [same; contract for development of Hard Rock Cafe contained terms sufficient to establish how future ventures were to be financed, owned, and operated]; Boyd v. Bevilacqua (1996) 247 Cal.App.2d 272, 285-287 [same; contract for commercial development]; Ersa Grae Corp. v. Fluor Corp. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 613, 623 [contract to transfer real property].) C. Breach of Implied Contract