Hagopian v. Barron
Plaintiffs Artour Hagopian, Diran Maloumian, and A.D. Truck Parking & Fuel LLC appeal from that portion of a judgment in favor of defendants Raymond Barron, Arrow Fuel Service, Inc., and the Barron Family Limited Partnership. On appeal, plaintiffs contend: 1) the terms of the parties contract were sufficiently certain to order specific performance; 2) the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony to interpret the contract; 3) Barrons contracting method was an unfair business practice; and 4) Hagopian and Maloumian were prevailing parties, because restitution of $25,000 was a net monetary recovery. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying specific performance, the admission of expert testimony did not cause any prejudice to plaintiffs, substantial evidence supports the trial courts finding that Barron did not commit an unfair business practice, and Hagopian and Maloumian were not the prevailing parties.
Defendants Raymond Barron, Arrow Fuel Service, Inc., and the Barron Family Limited Partnership appeal from the portion of the judgment ordering restitution of a $25,000 deposit to plaintiffs, with interest. Court conclude there is no evidence to support the trial courts finding that defendants tender of plaintiffs deposit prior to the instant action was conditional. Therefore, the judgment must be modified to provide for replacement of the check, without prejudgment interest. As modified, Court affirm.
Comments on Hagopian v. Barron