Termination letter sample

Appellant applicant challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that dismissed his first amended complaint, against appellee state bar, Harvard Club, and former bar governors, which alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and unfair competition and/or unfair uses of foundation on the part of appellees for failing to give appellant a passing grade on the first year law student examination.

Appellant applicant filed an action against appellees state bar, the Harvard Club, and former bar governors, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and unfair competition and/or unfair uses of foundation, for the failure to give appellant a passing grade on the first year law student examination. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(63) provided that the passing grade in first year termination letter sample aw examinations was 70 percent of the highest possible grade. Appellant argued that the highest possible grade was the highest passing grade attained on the examination rather than the highest possible grade of 100 percent. The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's amended complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court. The court ruled that appellant's interpretation of the language of § 6068(63) was not intended and the words could not be so interpreted. Moreover, the court held that appellant failed to state a cause of action against any of the named appellees for damages, relief, or otherwise because appellants' deficiencies were brought about solely from his own deficiencies and not from any action of appellees.

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint because appellant failed to state any cause of action under which he could recover.

Whether or not Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.124(b)(2), 8.147(b)(1), both applied when a reporter's transcript was used in addition to an appellants' appendix, any noncompliance was cured by requesting judicial notice of the parts of the prior appeal incorporated by reference; [2]-Because both parties shared in drafting a repurchase agreement that was an illegal contract under Civ. Code, § 1667, by reason of the lack of a subdivision map, the parties were in pari delicto, and an attorney fees clause in the repurchase agreement could not be enforced under Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a); [3]-Contractual attorney fees were recoverable under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021, at least to the extent the litigation involved the affirmative defense that an option contract containing an attorney fees provision was a novation.

Reversed and remanded.

Defendants, a car dealer and a finance company, sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Solano County (California), which denied their petition to compel arbitration of plaintiff consumer's action alleging statutory violations relating to the financing of a used car.

The retail installment sales contract contained an arbitration clause, which was located on the reverse side of the preprinted contract and had a large bold header in capital letters. A statement above the final signature line, also in capital letters, noted the presence of an arbitration clause on the reverse side. The consumer asserted that he had not read the arbitration clause and was unaware of its existence when he bought the car. The court held that the consumer could not avoid the arbitration clause under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281, based on unconscionability under Civ. Code, § 1670.5, because the degree of procedural unconscionability arising from the use of the preprinted contract was minimal. The arbitration clause was conspicuous, and lengthy two-sided contract forms were commonly used by dealers to comply with Civ. Code, § 2981.9, and other statutes. Moreover, the only suggestion of substantive unconscionability was a one-sided term pertaining to a second arbitration. Requiring the consumer to pay his own costs did not violate Code Civ. Proc., § 1284.3, subd. (a), and was not unconscionable absent evidence that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive.

The court reversed and remanded to the trial court for entry of an order directing arbitration under the terms of the sales contract.