Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)

Citation
Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Parent Document
Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2001-07-19

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text

659 chars
Further, “[w]hether an action is based on contract or tort depends upon the nature of the right sued upon, not the form of the pleading or relief demanded. If based on breach of promise it is contractual; if based on breach of a noncontractual duty it is tortious. ... If unclear the action will be considered based on contract rather than tort. . . . HQ In the final analysis we look to the pleading to determine the nature of plaintiff’s claim.” (Arthur L. Sachs, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 315, 322 [198 Cal.Rptr. 483], citations omitted; accord, Voth v. Wasco Public Util. Dist. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 353, 356-357 [128 Cal.Rptr. 608].)