DocketNumber: Civ. No. 3912.
Citation Numbers: 208 P. 1006, 58 Cal. App. 480
Judges: JAMES, J. —
Filed Date: 7/5/1922
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
Plaintiff was awarded judgment in the sum of $800 upon an alleged contract made with the defendants. Defendants have appealed from that judgment and here present the judgment-roll, insisting that the complaint of plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and that their demurrer interposed thereto should have been sustained.
In paragraph III of his complaint plaintiff alleged that on the 20th of December, 1920, defendants executed a "memorandum" in writing wherein and whereby the terms of said agreement were set forth, said instrument being in words and figures as follows, to wit:
"Dec. 20, 1920.
"Mr. C. G. Yarbrough,
"2019 Bay St.,
"Los Angeles, Cal.
"Dear Sir: Rosenburg Co., 336 E. 3rd St. agree for certain information regarding a 340 K. W. D.C. generator to pay you the sum of $800.00 if the set is bought for $5500.00 and to pay you the sum of $1000.00 if the set is purchased for less than $5000.00.
"Yours truly,
"ROSENBURG CO.
"By F. P. ARROUSEZ."
It was further alleged that in consideration of said agreement plaintiff furnished to the defendants the information referred to in said memorandum, "to wit, information where and when a certain 340 K. W. D.C. generator might be purchased. That the said information so furnished by plaintiff to the defendants was the same information and all of the information referred to in said memorandum aforesaid and was all of the information required to be furnished and asked for by the defendants." It was further alleged that defendants did purchase the generator for a sum less than $5,000 and that they had refused plaintiff's demand to pay for the service rendered.[1] Appellants *Page 482
insist that the written memorandum must be taken as representing the contract made between the parties and that it is unenforceable because the consideration to be rendered by the plaintiff is not therein stated. The words "certain information," it is contended, are too indefinite to describe what the service to be rendered by the plaintiff was. The case of Talmadge v. Arrowhead R. Co.,
The demurrer was properly overruled. The judgment is affirmed.
Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred. *Page 483