Trial Court Lacked Evidence To Grant A Motion In Limine So The Jury Verdict Was Reversed.

In a business dispute after a 20-year business relationship, goods were delivered by plaintiff to defendant, and the invoices correctly listed the agreed upon price of the goods. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude evidence that would vary the express terms of 33 invoices, interest payments as late charges. But in purportedly denying the motion, the trial court stated that under section 2202 of the “California Commercial Code, it found an express agreement between the parties, requiring interest to be paid.” A jury awarded plaintiff $439,792.99, $180,672.49 of which represents interest. The appellate court disagreed with the trial court that the interest provision was a term of the contract and reversed, stating: “Here, there is no dispute that the parties’ entered into multiple contracts. [Defendant] agrees that it ordered goods from [plaintiff] and the invoices correctly list the agreed upon price of the goods. The issue at the heart of this appeal is whether the parties agreed to the interest provision. [California Commercial Code] Section 2207 is the appropriate mechanism to determine this issue. . . We conclude the trial court erred in ruling that the parties’ contracts included an interest charge for late payments . . . the court made this ruling as part of its consideration of [plaintiff’s] motion in limine, but did not appear to have a basis to do so on the record, and thus, we reverse the judgment. . . There simply was not enough evidence for the court to make that determination as a matter of law.” Hebberd-Kulow Enterprises, Inc. v. Kelomar, Inc. (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1;  July 25, 2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 272.