section 1950

Citation: section 1950
Parent Document: 250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2005-07-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2281319/250-llc-v-photopoint-corpusa/ ↗

Full Text

1,190 chars

250 contends that the court erred in granting Sherwood’s motion to preclude 250 from introducing paroi evidence to show an understanding between 250 and PhotoPoint that, if the latter breached the lease, the security deposit could be applied against future as well as past due rent. 250 sought to submit testimony from the real estate agent who acted for 250 and PhotoPoint in the lease negotiations that “it was the general intent and it was the general climate in the market that existed, that letters of credit were being issued to protect landlords from tenants going out of business and making sure that you were going to get 18 months of rent, or a year’s rent, or whatever a certain landlord was comfortable with.” 250 wanted to introduce testimony from PhotoPoint’s chief financial officer, who understood that the letter of credit “was there to protect the landlord,” and that 250 would look to the security deposit to address damages flowing from a default. 250 also wanted to present testimony from one of its managers that Sherwood contacted him in 2001 and indicated that it was seeking a replacement tenant in order to negotiate a return of part of the letter of credit funds.

Other Sections in This Document (165)

Full Text