“It is true that at the time of the refusal of the accused… in order to continue with the Bronson Avenue joint venture, the complainants had duly fulfilled all the conditions they met as part of the verbal agreement of the joint venture … and it is true that the continuation of the applicants` benefits was prevented by the conduct of that defendant. “The evidence shows that the complainants provided valuable services to Bronson`s joint venture for a long period of time through the preparation and execution of the contract. In addition, the complainants were denied the opportunity to earn $5,000.00 in the development of the plans and specifications under the joint venture agreement. The prejudice suffered by the applicants could also be a loss of profit in this transaction, since, in the case submitted by the defendants, there is evidence to support the conclusion that there was a reasonable likelihood that profits would have been realized, with the exception of the breach of contract. It is the Court`s decision that the plaintiffs are entitled to an additional $15,000 in damages against the defendants.  As in Gold Min. – Water Co. v. Swinerton, 23 Cal.
2d 19, 29 [142 p.2d 22], “ A contract is totally violated and there is a proactive refusal if the promisor, without justification and before committing an offence, gives a positive explanation for the promise that it will not fulfill or be unable to fulfill most of its contractual obligations.”  On July 14, 1960, as part of the Joint Venture`s Horn Avenue Agreement, the applicants were not required to comply with the sole provision of 1231 Horn Avenue or to supplement their consent to new conditions. However, the accused, in their letter of July 14, 1960, indicate that if the complainants do not accept the defendant`s ultimatum, the accused “will cancel any proposed joint venture between us.” “The reasons for the first course are very compelling: the fact that you take things for granted; Their self-centered and fair position; You did not appreciate the fact that I live the disproportionate and almost free contribution I made to each proposed joint venture, by sharing the Bronson and Horn properties and by offering my past experience as a basis for future ventures; I suspect that it may not be in their nature to allow continuous harmony in our relationship (a factor which, given my particular state of health and temperament, is more important than any money we can earn); Their acquisition of rights that are open to the least [219 Cal. App. 2d 804] Debate and your willingness to make a quick change. They all took me for a break. Nevertheless, I am not without hesitation to at least clarify my position and leave you the question of whether you sincerely and sincerely believe that we can continue from here. “It is also disposed, adjudged And Decree, that there is a joint venture between the parties, these two specific parcels of improved real estate commonly known as 1230 Horn Avenue and 1231 Horn Avenue, both in the city and county of Los Angeles, California; that the specific package, known as 1230 Horn Avenue, is owned by the parties for the benefit of their joint venture; that the package known as 1231 Horn Avenue is held by the defendants for the benefit of that joint venture; that each of the parties has an equal interest in the aforementioned combined real estate and that each of the parties participates equally in the profits and losses of the aforementioned joint venture; that the aforementioned joint venture is a joint venture, dissolves and dissolves without delay; …” (added to the article) The Tribunal found (factual finding of Note 2 of footnote 2, supra) that the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiffs an undivided half of the ownership of the 1231 Horn Avenue property for a total amount of $38,000, in cash, in cash, within six months of the date of the joint venture`s agreement the sum of $38,000 less than half of the remaining balance on a guaranteed note by a declaration of confidence on the 1231 property.