Kahili, Inc. v. Yamamoto

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that two individuals were the alter ego of a corporation and piercing the corporate veil because (1) two shareholders owned all stock, (2) corporation was undercapitalized, and (3) evidence suggested they were acting for their behalf rather than for the corporation
• piercing corporate veil because (1) two shareholders owned all stock, (2) corporation was undercapitalized, and (3) shareholders’ behavior in lease negotiations suggested they were acting for their behalf rather than for the corporation
• “If a promisor, without legal excuse, prevents the happening of an event upon which his liability depends, he cannot thus be allowed to defeat the promise.”
• “The general rule is that where a person by his own act makes impossible the performance or the happening of a condition such nonperformance should not relieve him from his obligation under a contract.”
• “The general rule is that where a person by his own act makes impossible the performance or the happening of a condition such nonperformance should not relieve him from his obligation under a contract.”
• “The general rule is that where a person by his own act makes impossible the performance or the happening of a condition such nonperformance should not relieve him from his obligation under a contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).