KING, J.
In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the response filed by real parties in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.) We will grant the petition in part and deny in part.
With respect to petitioners' cause of action for breach of contract, real parties relied on the fact that petitioners never presented a formal request for approval of the transfer of the franchises and the required information about the proposed transferee. However, petitioners' assertion that real parties' representative clearly informed petitioners that the proposed transferee would not be approved could, on a persuasive and detailed evidentiary showing, be found to excuse petitioners' failure to perform that condition or obligation. Hence, in our view this cause of action should have been allowed to proceed to trial.
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the superior court of Riverside County to vacate its order granting summary adjudication of the breach of contract claim, and to enter a new order denying real parties' motion in that respect. In all other respects the petition is denied.
Petitioners are directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties. In the interests of justice, the parties shall bear their own costs.
RICHLI, Acting P. J. and MILLER, J., concurs.