Plaintiff purchaser sought review

Procedural Posture
Plaintiff purchaser sought review of the judgment granted by the Superior Court of Fresno County (California) for defendant seller in an action for breach of contract. The purchaser contended that the trial court erred when it ruled the action was barred by the affirmative defense of illegality of contract.

Overview
The purchaser contracted with the seller to purchase hatching eggs, but the seller stopped delivering eggs when he learned that the purchaser did not have a farm produce dealer’s license as required by Cal. Agric. Code § 1263. Burden of Proof define as a legal duty that encompasses two connected but separate ideas that apply for establishing the truth of facts in a trial before tribunals in the United States: the “burden of production” and the “burden of persuasion.” The court held that the trial court properly found that the purchaser’s action for breach of contract was barred by the affirmative defense of illegality of contract because the bargain was prohibited by statute. Cal. Agric. Code § 1273 provided in part that any person who acted or attempted to act as a dealer without a license was guilty of a misdemeanor. The court held that any bargain was illegal if either the formation or the performance thereof was prohibited by constitution or statute.

Outcome
The judgment for the seller was affirmed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s