Ask incorporate business attorney for your assistance in California

 Defendant goods purchaser sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of defendant manufacturer in the manufacturer's action to recover an alleged indebtedness for materials furnished and labor performed by the manufacturer for the purchaser. The purchaser also sought review of the denial of damages on its cross-complaint that alleged breach of warranty by the manufacturer.

The manufacturer brought an action of open book account, general assumpsit, and account stated that sought to recover an alleged indebtedness for materials that were furnished to, and labor performed for, the purchaser. The manufacturer contacted their incorporate business attorney for assistance on after the purchaser claimed a breach of warranty by the manufacturer in their cross-complaint.   The purchaser filed a cross-complaint for damages for the manufacturer's breach of warranty. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the manufacturer, and the purchaser sought review. On appeal, the purchaser contended that there was no evidence of an agreement by the parties to share equally the salvage expense and the replacement costs. The court held that there was no evidence to support the finding that the purchaser were liable for one-half of the cost of salvaging defective parts or for one-half of the cost of manufacturing replacement parts. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court. The court remanded the matter with directions for a new trial because the conflict in the findings was clear, irreconcilable, and material and the court found that it was impossible to harmonize them. The court ruled that the relief sought by, and denied to, the purchaser was inextricably bound up in the issues tried on the complaint.

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court that was in favor of the manufacturer in the manufacturer's action to recover amounts allegedly due for materials furnished and labor performed for the purchaser. The court directed that the manufacturer's action be remanded for a new trial.

HOLDINGS: [1]-The trial court did not err in confirming an arbitration award under Code Civ. Proc., § 1285, and denying vacation based on an alleged failure to disclose a ground for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(6)(A), because the arbitration provider's business relationship with a party's counsel and the arbitrator's small ownership interest in the provider did not reasonably raise a doubt about the arbitrator's impartiality and thus did not require disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(A)(iii), 1281.9, subd. (a), 1281.91, and Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators, std. 7(a), absent any showing of favoritism, in a business dispute involving sophisticated parties whose counsel used the provider to the same extent; [2]-No absolute right to disqualify existed because a challenge was not timely asserted under § 1281.91, subd. (c).