Grissom v. Dealer Services Corporation 06/03/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. 01 JURY TRIAL
If you have been wait for Grissom to stop unfair business practices, it may be over sooner than you think call for up date. Michael Grissom 818 749 3288
DSC CONTRACT IS IN QUESTION
DSC does not want this Court to interpret the contract which is the subject of this dispute.
DSC first asks this court to ignore the Contract it attached to its SACC and which is the basis of the SACC.
DSC first asks this court to ignore their own Contract they attached to their SACC, despite incorporating that same Contract in their pleadings. The statute of frauds is designed to prevent such perjury and fraud and is applicable to DSC's own Opposition to their contract.
Next, DSC's Opposition to MJOP states "Further, it is error for the court in ruling on a demurrer to take judicial notice of the contents of a sworn affidavit filed in a companion case" (Opposition pg 4 Â¶2). The "companion case" is this very own case, GRISSOM v. DSC.
Grissom's MJOP states that the Contract was for an unlawful purpose; violated California laws and statutes prohibiting usury, loan sharking and unlicensed lending; is procedurally and substantively unconconscionable. DSC does not refute this in their opposition, simply ignoring that, "No principle of law is better settled than that a party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objects carried out." ' " (Wong v. Tenneco, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 126, 135.)