#nonusurious

[blogsposting]

Plaintiff seller challenged the judgment

Plaintiff seller challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found that one of the agreements that the seller entered into with defendant buyer was usurious but the other was not.

With the help of an experienced team of attorneys, the seller brought an action for an accounting, damages for usury arising from successive agreements to factor accounts receivable, and damages for breach of contract based on revocation of a check drawn by the buyer in favor of the seller. The court found the first factoring agreement to be usurious but held the second free of the taint. Damages for revocation of the check were refused. On appeal the seller objected to the finding that the second agreement was nonusurious, complained of error in the computation of damages for usury under the first agreement, alleged error in refusal to award interest upon usurious payments commencing at the time the payments were made, and sought to establish a right to specific and punitive damages for unjustifiable stoppage of payment on certain checks. The court modified the award to seller under the first agreement by increasing the amount to reflect the additional recovery to which the seller was entitled. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The court modified the judgment of the trial court by increasing the award for interest due under the first agreement to the seller. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed holding that the first agreement between the seller and buyer was usurious, that the second agreement was not usurious, and that the seller was not entitled to recover damages for stoppage of payment on certain checks.