Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Section 31

Citation
Section 31
Parent Document
250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2005-07-28

Other Sections in This Document (165)

Full Text

453 chars
The trial court determined that although 250 had not returned the security deposit as required under section 1950.7, 250 could nonetheless offset the deposit against the damages it sustained as a result of PhotoPoint’s breach of the lease. In its statement of decision and judgment, the court concluded that 250 was “entitled to pursue its rights of setoff” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.70 and Granberry v. Islay Investments, supra, 9