# Hi-Way Motor Co. v. International Harvester Co.

> Michigan Supreme Court · December 21, 1976 · 398 Mich. 330

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9723406

## Case

- **Full name:** Hi-Way Motor Company v. International Harvester Company
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 21, 1976
- **Citations:** 398 Mich. 330; 247 N.W.2d 813; 1976 Mich. LEXIS 187
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Williams
- **Judges:** Kavanagh, Levin, Coleman, Fitzgerald, Ryan, Lindemer
- **Cited by:** 297 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9723406

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an allegation of fraud must allege: (1) that the defendant made a material representation, (2) that the representation was false, (3) that when the defendant made the representation, it was known to be false, or was made recklessly, without any knowledge of its tr…
- holding that a letter dated three years after a future promise was made constituted “evidence too remote in time to indicate that when the [defendants’] agents made the promise they had no intention of fulfilling it”
- observing that this exception exists but finding that “the record is bereft of any such facts” that would allow application of the , exception and further observing that the excep: tion was recognized in a case involving a fiduciary relationship and there was none involved there
- stating “a fraudulent misrepresentation may be based upon a promise made in bad faith without intention of performance.”

## Opinion text

*340 Williams, J.
(concurring). I concur with my Brother Justice Lindemer. I agree with the circuit court that fraud may be predicated on broken future promises. However, in this case the circuit court relied exclusively on a letter allegedly evidencing fraud which was admitted into evidence for purposes other than showing defendant’s agents had no intention of fulfilling their promises. Absent this evidence, I agree that defendant in this case made no material misrepresentation to plaintiff.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9723406. Public record. Not legal advice.