The general rule is that the measure of recovery by a wrongfully discharged employee is the amount of salary agreed upon for the period of service, less the amount which the employer affirmatively proves the employee has earned or with reasonable effort might have earned from other employment

`Although appellate courts are authorized to make findings of fact on appeal by Code of Civil Procedure section 909 and rule 23 of the California Rules of Court, the authority should be exercised sparingly

"The duty of an appellate court is not to seek out and analyze conflicts or to substitute its own appraisal for that of the trial court in the absence of an obvious abuse of discretion. When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court. In the absence of prejudicial error …

In fact, if the concept of mitigation were introduced into the attorney-client relationship, the attorney would usually still recover the full contract price because the employer bears the burden of proving that the discharged employee has or reasonably could have secured employment

The granting or denial of a motion to vacate the submission of a cause for the purpose of introducing additional evidence rests in the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown

Rule 8.252 (c) was not "intended to transform reviewing courts into trial courts [citations] and the power granted is to be exercised sparingly and only where the purpose of the new findings would constitute a basis for an affirmance of the judgment or a basis for reversal of the judgment with directions to the trial court to enter judgment for appellants [citation

[BOOK] Contract Doctrine, Theory and Practice

[CITATION] REPORTS OF CASES DETERMINED IN THE COURTS OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

[CITATION] Entertainment Law