benefit-of-the-bargain rule in California

2013(Nece v. Bennett (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 494, 497 .) The out-of-pocket measure is contrasted with the benefit-of-the-bargain rule, which is " 'concerned with satisfying the expectancy interest of the defrauded plaintiff by putting him in the position he would have enjoyed if the false representation relied upon 23 had been true; it awards the difference in value between what the plaintiff actually received and what he was fraudulently led to believe he would receive.' " (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1240 ; see 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 1

2010Since there is a split of authority as to the measure of damages for breach of fiduciary duty among the Courts of Appeal, none of the decisions are binding.” The arbitrator ultimately decided to apply the benefit-of-the-bargain rule based on the analysis in Fragale v. Faulkner (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 229, 235-238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 616 ], and Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 563-568 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 463 ].

2010Since there is a split of authority as to the measure of damages for breach of fiduciary duty among the Courts of Appeal, none of the decisions are binding.” The arbitrator ultimately decided to apply the benefit-of-the-bargain rule based on the analysis in Fragale v. Faulkner (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 229, 235-238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 616 ], and Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 563-568 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 463 ].

2010Since there is a split of authority as to the measure of damages for breach of fiduciary duty among the Courts of Appeal, none of the decisions are binding.” The arbitrator ultimately decided to apply the benefit-of-the-bargain rule based on the analysis in Fragale v. Faulkner (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 229, 235-238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 616 ], and Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 563-568 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 463 ].

2010(See Baize v. Eastridge Companies, LLC (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 293, 297, 300-301 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 763 ] [concluding, prior to DIRECTV, that arbitration award was unreviewable on the merits despite arbitration provision “constraining]” arbitrator to apply California substantive law and depriving arbitrator of “jurisdiction” to apply any other substantive law], cited with approval in DIRECTV, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 1345, 1347, 1360.) It follows that the trial court properly declined to review the Brokers’ legal contentions that the arbitrator erred by finding they had breached a fiduciary duty

2010(See Baize v. Eastridge Companies, LLC (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 293, 297, 300-301 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 763 ] [concluding, prior to DIRECTV, that arbitration award was unreviewable on the merits despite arbitration provision “constraining]” arbitrator to apply California substantive law and depriving arbitrator of “jurisdiction” to apply any other substantive law], cited with approval in DIRECTV, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 1345, 1347, 1360.) It follows that the trial court properly declined to review the Brokers’ legal contentions that the arbitrator erred by finding they had breached a fiduciary duty

1995Salahutdin, however, involved the measure of damages for a fiduciary's negligent misrepresentation. ( Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., supra, 24 Cal. App.4th at p. 560.) We have previously held that a plaintiff is only entitled to its actual or "out-of-pocket" losses suffered because of fiduciary's negligent misrepresentation under section *1250 3333. ( Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 502, 504, citing Gagne v. Bertran (1954) 43 Cal.2d 481, 490 [ 275 P.2d 15 ].) While the measure of damages under section 3333 might be greater for a fiduciary's intentional

1995Salahutdin, however, involved the measure of damages for a fiduciary's negligent misrepresentation. ( Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., supra, 24 Cal. App.4th at p. 560.) We have previously held that a plaintiff is only entitled to its actual or "out-of-pocket" losses suffered because of fiduciary's negligent misrepresentation under section *1250 3333. ( Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 502, 504, citing Gagne v. Bertran (1954) 43 Cal.2d 481, 490 [ 275 P.2d 15 ].) While the measure of damages under section 3333 might be greater for a fiduciary's intentional

1948Although it was generally stated that California applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule (see Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co., 8 Cal.2d 675, 679 [ 67 P.2d 1039 ]; Wood v. Niemeyer, 185 Cal. 526, 532 [ 197 P. 795 ]; Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; 25 Cal.Jur. 563), it is apparent that there was considerable confusion and that the rule was not always followed.

1948Although it was generally stated that California applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule (see Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co., 8 Cal.2d 675, 679 [ 67 P.2d 1039 ]; Wood v. Niemeyer, 185 Cal. 526, 532 [ 197 P. 795 ]; Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; 25 Cal.Jur. 563), it is apparent that there was considerable confusion and that the rule was not always followed.

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948Although it was generally stated that California applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule (see Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co., 8 Cal.2d 675, 679 [ 67 P.2d 1039 ]; Wood v. Niemeyer, 185 Cal. 526, 532 [ 197 P. 795 ]; Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; 25 Cal.Jur. 563), it is apparent that there was considerable confusion and that the rule was not always followed.

1948Although it was generally stated that California applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule (see Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co., 8 Cal.2d 675, 679 [ 67 P.2d 1039 ]; Wood v. Niemeyer, 185 Cal. 526, 532 [ 197 P. 795 ]; Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; 25 Cal.Jur. 563), it is apparent that there was considerable confusion and that the rule was not always followed.

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948Assn., 45 Cal.App.2d 395, 400 [ 114 P.2d 395 ]; Mortimer v. Young, 37 Cal.App.2d 164, 168 [ 98 P.2d 1061 ]; see Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 24 Cal.2d 290, 297 [ 149 P.2d 177 ]; Taylor v. Wright, 69 Cal.App.2d 371, 385-386 [ 159 P.2d 980 ]; Martin v. Tully, 44 Cal.App.2d 226, 234 [ 112 P.2d 282 ].) We have been able to find no case, however, which has applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule after section 3343 became operative.

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948Although it was generally stated that California applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule (see Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co., 8 Cal.2d 675, 679 [ 67 P.2d 1039 ]; Wood v. Niemeyer, 185 Cal. 526, 532 [ 197 P. 795 ]; Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; 25 Cal.Jur. 563), it is apparent that there was considerable confusion and that the rule was not always followed.

1948Although it was generally stated that California applied the benefit-of-the-bargain rule (see Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co., 8 Cal.2d 675, 679 [ 67 P.2d 1039 ]; Wood v. Niemeyer, 185 Cal. 526, 532 [ 197 P. 795 ]; Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; 25 Cal.Jur. 563), it is apparent that there was considerable confusion and that the rule was not always followed.

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S

1948(Cf. Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. Cannan, 219 Cal. 184, 192 [ 25 P.2d 839 , 91 A.L.R. 1357 ]; Divani v. Donovan, 214 Cal. 447, 454 [ 6 P.2d 247 ]; MacDonald v. Roeth, 179 Cal. 194 , 200 et seq. [ 176 P. 38 ]; Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253, 257 [ 165 P. 702 ] [explained on denial of hearing by Supreme Court in George Cople Co. v. Hindes, 34 Cal.App. 576, 580 [ 170 P. 155 ]); Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 510 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal. 721, 726 [ 134 P. 329 ]; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 633 [ 59 P. 122 ]; [1934] 22 Cal.L.Rev. 456, 457; [1939] 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168, 169.) S