Chino-Pacific Warehouse Corp. v. Leslie’s Poolma
Chino-Pacific Warehouse Corporation contracted with Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc. to provide storage for Poolmart’s chlorine products. Chino stored Poolmart’s chlorine products in a warehouse whose owner later sued Chino when the owner discovered that the products damaged the warehouse. In response, Chino sued Poolmart in a separate action for breach of contract and fraud, alleging that Poolmart failed to provide Chino with all information necessary to properly store the chlorine products. A jury disagreed and rendered a complete defense verdict for Poolmart.
Chino argues the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury about a disputed condition-precedent provision in the parties’ contract and by precluding a “rebuttal witness” from testifying. We find no error and affirm.
Comments on Chino-Pacific Warehouse Corp. v. Leslie’s Poolma