HOLDINGS: [1]-An integration clause in a real estate purchase contract, which expressly barred the introduction of extrinsic evidence in any judicial proceedings, precluded the admission of extrinsic evidence to interpret the contract in a reference proceeding under Code Civ. Proc., § 638, and was not contrary to public policy; [2]-Interpreting an indemnity clause to include direct claims for the buyer’s damages arising from environmental remediation was permissible under Civ. Code, § 2772, and was appropriate under Civ. Code, §§ 1636, 1638, in light of clear language throughout the agreement showing that the parties intended to address the buyer’s environmental concerns; [3]-An award of damages for loss of use was not reasonably related to the evidence; [4]-Any finding of negligent misrepresentation was error because the statement of decision did not reflect that damages resulted.
Nakase Law Firm explica cuanto es el minimo en california 2021
Outcome
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
