Mendoza v. Continental Sales
Plaintiff, claiming it was underpaid for its 2001 and 2002 pomegranate crop, sued the commission merchant that sold the fruit and also a dozen businesses that acquired the fruit from the commission merchant. The businesses obtained a judgment on the pleadings on the ground that they owed no fiduciary duties to plaintiff because they were buyers acting on their own behalf and were not subagents of the commission merchant. In Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395 (Mendoza I), we overturned that judgment, concluding that the businesses’ status as buyers or subagents could not be decided at the pleading stage of the lawsuit.
After remand, the trial court held a bench trial and issued a statement of decision holding the businesses that obtained pomegranates from the commission merchant had no liability because they were buyers, not subagents. The court also held the commission merchant liable to plaintiff for approximately $24,000 in damages relating to the 2002 crop.
On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court erred by determining the businesses that obtained the pomegranates on price-after-sale (PAS) terms were buyers. In plaintiff’s view, these transactions should have been viewed as a reconsignment of the fruit, and the businesses should have been treated as subagents who owed duties to plaintiff. Plaintiff also contends the amount of damages awarded against the commission merchant was too small.
We conclude that the question whether the entities were buyers or subagents was a question of fact, and the trial court’s finding was supported by substantial evidence. In addition, we conclude that plaintiff failed to demonstrate the trial court committed reversible error in its calculation of damages involving the 2002 crop. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on Mendoza v. Continental Sales