Contract Disputes

Resolving disagreements and protecting your rights through creative legal solutions and litigation support

We’ve successfully achieved trial victories and recovered damages for clients

If you are facing a contract dispute, our attorneys can assist you in finding creative solutions and enforcing your contractual obligations through the courts.

A contract is an agreement between two parties. The agreement can be written, oral, or implied by conduct. Although the purpose of a contract is to create a clear understanding of each party’s obligations, disagreements can still occur about what the contract terms mean, whether a party performed the requirements of the contract, or whether the contract is enforceable.

Our attorneys are adept at finding creative solutions to contract disputes and at enforcing contractual obligations through the courts when needed. We have achieved significant trial victories in contract cases, by defending against breach of contract claims and also by recovering damages for our clients who have been harmed by a breach of a contract.

Learn more about our business litigation and counseling practice, including representative cases in this area. Contact GED to discuss how we may be of service in your contract dispute matter.

  • Legal services to help resolve contract disputes, including those that involve disagreements about the terms, performance, or enforcement of a contract.
  • Track record of success in finding creative solutions to contract disputes and enforcing contractual obligations through the courts when necessary.
  • Representation for clients who have been harmed by a breach of contract, and they have achieved significant trial victories in contract cases.

Representative Cases

In Swift v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 878, our attorneys won a published reversal of the trial court’s order striking the tenant plaintiffs’ peremptory disqualification of the judge as untimely. The Court of Appeal held that the tenants’ disqualification of the trial judge was timely, even though that judge had presided over earlier discovery motions, since such motions do not involve the determination of fact issues as to the merits of the case. Read the opinions here.

In Murray’s Iron Works, Inc. v. Boyce (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1279, our attorneys won a published reversal of the trial court’s order granting a contractor statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeal held that Civil Code §3260.1, which applies to construction contracts involving “progress” payments, does not apply to construction contracts where the only payments are either down payments or payments upon completion. Read the opinions here.

In Pecoraro v. GBR Magic Sands MHP LLC (2016, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H040008), our attorneys were part of a team that won affirmance of a judgment following a bench trial cancelling a 98-year ground lease entered into in 1963. Like the trial court, the Court of Appeal rejected all of the respondents’ defenses including statute of limitations, res judicata, and contractual estoppel. The Court also rejected the respondents’ attacks on the remedy of lease cancellation as opposed to damages. Read the opinions here.

In Wang v. The TDS Group, Inc. (2014, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H038786), our attorneys won affirmance of the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s post-trial motion for new trial following a multi-million dollar plaintiff’s verdict. The Court of Appeal agreed that the erroneous jury verdict form gave rise to irreconcilably inconsistent jury answers, and thus was “against the law.” Read the opinions here.

In David v. D & D Apparel, Inc. (2007, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H029839), we won affirmance of the trial court’s order in a business dispute granting the defendant relief from default. In affirming, the Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion where the defendant’s prior counsel’s default was based upon that attorney’s terminal illness. Read the opinions here.

We successfully won reversal of a $1,100,000 judgment against our client. A shareholder filed a derivative suit claiming usurpation of corporate opportunity and a breach of fiduciary duty during a real estate purchase and development project against our client. The trial court awarded Plaintiff $660,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages as an individual shareholder in that derivative suit. On appeal, GED convinced the Sixth District that the trial court was incorrect in awarding fees to an individual shareholder in a derivative action, and that there was no substantial evidence showing a fiduciary relationship with our client to establish a duty in the first instance. Ultimately, the entire judgment against our client was reversed. Read the opinions here.

In Tamayo v. CordeValle Golf Club, LLC (2013, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case No. H037983), our attorneys, representing the employee, won affirmance of the trial court’s order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration of the employee’s retaliation claims. The Court of Appeal adopted our trial court arguments that the arbitration provision embedded in the employer’s handbook failed to constitute an enforceable contract where the handbook’s cover page stated that it is not “intended to confer any rights or privileges,” nor “does it constitute a contract of employment,” and that the handbook is “presented as a matter of information only.” Read the opinion here.

Get in touch

Here for you when you need us most.