CACI 1921 Buyer’s Damages for Purchase or Acquisition of Property—Lost Profits
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
1921 Buyer’s Damages for Purchase or Acquisition of Property—Lost Profits
[Name of plaintiff] may recover damages for profits [or other gains] [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] would have made if the property had been as represented. [Name of plaintiff] can recover these profits [or other gains] only if [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] has proved all of the following:
1.That [name of plaintiff] acquired the property for the purpose of using or reselling it for a [profit/gain];
2.That [name of plaintiff] reasonably relied on [name of defendant]’s [false representation/failure to disclose/promise] in entering into the transaction and in anticipating [profits/gains] from the use or sale of the property; and
3.That [name of defendant]’s [false representation/failure to disclose/promise] and [name of plaintiff]’s reliance on it were both substantial factors in causing the lost profits.
You do not have to calculate the amount of the lost profits with mathematical precision, but there must be a reasonable basis for computing the loss.
Directions for Use
This instruction should be read immediately after CACI No. 1920, Buyer’s Damages for Purchase or Acquisition of Property, if the plaintiff is claiming lost profits.
Sources and Authority
•Fraud in Sale of Property: Buyer’s Damages for Lost Profits. Civil Code section 3343(a)(4).
•“With glaring inconsistency, California’s statutory structure before 1971 permitted recovery of lost profits and earnings under Civil Code section 3333 in fraud cases which did not concern the ‘purchase, sale or exchange of property,’ and even in simple negligence cases and breach of contract cases the injured parties could recover lost profits and earnings, while the ‘out of pocket’ rule barred the fraud victim in property transaction cases from recovering more than the difference between the amount he paid for the property and its actual value.” (Channell v. Anthony (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 290, 312 [129 Cal.Rptr. 704], internal citations and footnote omitted.)
•“The Legislature removed all doubt concerning the recovery of loss of profits resulting from the fraudulently induced property acquisition. Clearly and specifically, lost profits proximately caused are recoverable. The cases cited, the arguments made concerning Civil Code section 3343 limitations are simply not relevant to post-1971 proceedings, where profits are the claimed loss. Civil Code section 3343 as amended, in so many words, authorizes recovery of lost profits.” (Hartman v. Shell Oil Co. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 240, 247 [137 Cal.Rptr. 244].)