stating the “person injured by fraud is entitled to recover damages naturally and proximately resulting from the fraud”
How later courts described this case
- stating the “person injured by fraud is entitled to recover damages naturally and proximately resulting from the fraud”
- "as is" clause no bar to fraud claim where buyer specifically asked about electrical system and was told "You have nothing to worry about"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
William W. Young, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the holding of the court below on the disposition of the matters contained in all three assignments of error and would affirm the judgment of the trial court.