Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)

Citation: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Parent Document: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2020-09-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4784084/aljabban-v-fontana-indoor-swap-... ↗

Full Text

1,926 chars

36
enable and facilitate freedom of contract by the parties to commercial real
property leases.” (Civ. Code, § 1995.270, subd. (a)(1); see also 250 L.L.C.,
supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 718 [noting public policy of enabling and
facilitating freedom of contract in commercial leases when determining that
parties to commercial leases can waive the statutory protections for security
deposits].)
      Here, as Aljabban correctly points out, the vendor’s permit did not state
that the security deposit could be used by FISM to repair damage to the
premises caused by Aljabban and Carrasco. Accordingly, because the parties
entered into an agreement in a commercial context rather than a residential
context, FISM was not authorized to use the security deposit to cover its
expenses in repairing the premises.
      Aljabban asserted that the withholding of the $680.00 from the security
deposit supported his cause of action for breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing against FISM and Shapiro, as well as
his conversion cause of action against FISM. We conclude that judgment
should be entered in Aljabban’s favor on the breach of contract and
conversion causes of action against FISM. FISM failed to return $680.00 that
was owed to Aljabban under the vendor’s permit, supporting a finding in
favor of Aljabban on both of those causes of action.
      However, in light of the evidence at trial, we do not believe that the
failure to return $680.00 of the security deposit supports a judgment in favor
of Aljabban on the cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. “ ‘ “[B]reach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing involves something beyond breach of the contractual duty itself” and
it has been held that “[b]ad faith implies unfair dealing rather than mistaken
judgment.” ’ ” (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990)

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text