Legal Opinion · Dissent

Meadows v. Lee

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 10, 1985No. B004934Published

1DissentJohnson, J.

—I respectfully dissent.

The majority correctly points out the controlling factor in a novation contest is the intent of the parties. The question here was whether the parties to the original agreement, the seller Lee and the buyers Grimsgaards, intended to cancel that agreement and substitute a new agreement.

“‘Novation is the substitution of a new obligation for an existing one.’ (Civ. Code, § 1530.) ‘Novation is made: 1. By the substitution of a new obligation between the same parties, with intent to extinguish the old obligation. ...’(§ 1531.)”1 (Hunt v. Smyth (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 807, 818…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Travelers Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Alexander v. AngelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Burke v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1978
  5. Nichols v. Arthur Murray, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API