applying the rule that “an actionable representation cannot consist of mere broken promises, unfulfilled predictions or expectations, or erroneous conjectures as to future events” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- applying the rule that “an actionable representation cannot consist of mere broken promises, unfulfilled predictions or expectations, or erroneous conjectures as to future events” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- noting that facts proving fraud must be clearly established and affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant where there was no evidence he knew certain promises were false at time of making them
- affirming JNOV on fraud claim where nature of representations made reliance “utterly unreasonable”
- discussing past or present fact requirement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION OF
KIDWELL, J.
I concur in the foregoing opinion, but consider it desirable to say something more with respect to the rule that fraud may not be predicated upon unfulfilled predictions. I do not understand the opinion to deny that a representation by a self-proclaimed soothsayer that he or she has psychic powers which enable the future to be foretold might be an actionable representation if made with knowledge of its falsity, although the prediction of the soothsayer might not in itself be actionable. That question is not before us in this case, however, in the absence of any evidence that appellee was aware that he lacked power to foretell appellant’s future.