iLawDictionary.Com			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Contracts-Standing			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Contracts-Third Party Beneficiary Standing
(Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc. )

A - Aa - Ab - Ac - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- N - K to Z
 

Contracts statute of limitations oral  two-year Code of Civil Procedure sec339
(Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc. )

 We conclude the pleading here meets the test of demonstrating plaintiff’s standing as a third party beneficiary to enforce the contract between Erstad and defendant.  The couple went shopping for an engagement ring.  They were together when plaintiff chose the ring she wanted or, as alleged in the complaint, she “caused [the ring] to be purchased for her.”  Erstad allegedly bought the ring “for the sole and stated purpose of giving [the ring]” to plaintiff.  (Italics added.)  Under the alleged facts, the jeweler must have understood Erstad’s intent to enter the sales contract for plaintiff’s benefit.  Thus, plaintiff has adequately pleaded her status as a third party beneficiary, and she is entitled to proceed with her contract claim against defendant to the extent it is not time-barred.

                        With regard to the limitations period, defendant incorrectly argued the complaint was time-barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 339’s two-year statute of limitations applicable to oral contracts, i.e., the salesperson’s alleged statement about the quality of the diamond.  However, the applicable limitations period for breach of warranty in a contract for sale of goods is not set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, but in California Uniform Commercial Code section 2725, which provides a four-year limitations period for “any contract for sale,” regardless of whether the contract is written or oral.  (See Filmservice Laboratories, Inc. v. Harvey Bernhard Enterprises, Inc., (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1297, 1304 [“The term ‘any contract for sale’” as used in California Uniform Commercial Code section 2725 “includes an oral agreement”]; see also Hachten v. Stewart (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 3 [to the same effect].)  There can be no legitimate question the complaint is timely under the apt statute.

Breach of Contract/Breach of Express Warranty

                        Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is based on allegations of defendant’s breach of express warranty in representing the engagement diamond was of an SI1 clarity rating, when in actuality it was of an inferior quality.  Other than noting the breach of express warranty claim is adequately pleaded, and that plaintiff is entitled to pursue it as a third party beneficiary, we express no opinion on its ultimate viability.  It will be for the factfinder to determine from all the circumstances whether defendant’s statements regarding the clarity rating of the diamond constituted an express warranty under California Uniform Commercial Code section 2313 or were merely nonactionable expressions of opinion.[3]  In any event, this is the only cause of action on which plaintiff may proceed, as we discuss more fully, post.