Legal Opinion

Steven Valdez v. Philip Neuman

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 18, 2010No. 08-55674Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Steven Troy Valdez appeals the judgment against him after a bench trial in his suit for contract rescission. We vacate in part, affirm in part, and remand.

I. Rescission

The meaning of “assume” is not ambiguous and therefore can be decided as a matter of law. See Chwialkowski v. Sachs, 108 Nev. 404, 834 P.2d 405, 406 (1992) (per curiam) (holding that summary judgment was proper because unambiguous contractual language can be construed as a matter of law). To “assume” a debt is to agree to pay that debt when it is due, for assumption of a debt requires “be-com[ing] bound as…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,479 in Re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation. Societe Generale De Banque, Rentinvest, North American Fund a and Itf Fund, Ltd. v. Touche Ross & Co., Societe Generale De Banque, Rentinvest, North American Fund a and Itf Fund, Ltd. v. Brown, Wood, Fuller, Caldwell & Ivey and Brown, Wood, Ivey, Mitchell & PettyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  3. Canepa v. DurhamNevada Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Chwialkowski v. SachsNevada Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Lyerla v. WattsNevada Supreme Court · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API