stating that “in a business transaction the recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation ... is justified in relying upon its truth, although he might have ascertained its falsity had he made an investigation”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “in a business transaction the recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation ... is justified in relying upon its truth, although he might have ascertained its falsity had he made an investigation”
- stating as a general rule that the recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation is not justified in relying upon its truth if its falsity is “obvious” to the recipient
- finding defendants liable for fraud where they withheld the only practical source of pertinent information and thwarted plaintiffs’ efforts to investigate
- explaining misrepresentation at the formation of a contract
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Peterson, Justice
(dissenting).
While I concur in the views of the majority as to the rules of law stated in their opinion, I dissent upon the ground that, in *258 any reasonable view of the facts, plaintiffs failed to prove a case of fraud.
The evidence conclusively shows that it became known that defendants were willing to sell the property in question for about $100,000. Plaintiffs were familiar with the property. They started ■negotiations to purchase it. Before defendants made any representations concerning the property, and consequently when plaintiffs were uninfluenced by any such representations, they made an offer to purchase for $90,000. After some negotiations, the parties agreed on $95,000 as the purchase price. The increase in the purchase price as a consequence of the negotiations was a little less than six percent of plaintiffs’ offer before any representations had been made. A sale price increased, as a consequence of negotiations, such a slight amount above the buyers’ offer, uninfluenced by any representations, cannot be said to be the result of fraud. As a practical proposition, the sale here was at plaintiffs’ own price.
A painstaking reading of the record produces the conviction that the trial judge was influenced to find fraud because plaintiffs were young and inexperienced. Neither is a ground for finding fraud. While it is true that they were young, they were not inexperienced. As a consequence of experience, they had acquired unusual business acumen.