City and County of San Francisco (California)

Procedural Posture
Plaintiff contracting party brought suit against defendant contracting party after defendant failed to credit plaintiff's payment to it as agreed on a claim in defendant's suit against intervenor firm. Defendant challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) in favor of plaintiff and an order denying a new trial.

Overview
Pursuant to the contract between plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff was to obtain and deliver to the intervenor plaintiff's husband's written consent that the remainder of a particular fund be paid to her upon settlement of defendant's claim. The remainder was to be determined in a designated method, no other method was provided for, and plaintiff did not agree to obtain her husband's consent to the payment of a sum ascertained in any other way. Exhaustee define as an individual who, with respect to any week of unemployment in the individual's eligibility period has received, prior to such week, all of the regular benefits that were available to the individual under this chapter or any other state law.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, determining that immediately upon receipt of plaintiff's payment, defendant proceeded to violate the contract, and pursued a method that not only did not create any remainder in plaintiff's favor, but, by its process of applying plaintiff's money, made it impossible that there should ever be any remainder. Defendant did not credit the payment on the claim, but took judgment for the entire debt. The court found that, by defendant's process of violating the agreement, instead of there being any remainder, there was a deficiency. Defendant neither literally nor substantially complied with the contract, but ignored it entirely.

Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff and its order that denied a new trial.