# R & A, INC. v. Kozy Korner, Inc.

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · February 29, 1996 · 672 A.2d 1062

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757580

## Case

- **Full name:** R & A, INC., Alex Gatzionis and Valerie Gatzionis, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. KOZY KORNER, INC. and John Vassilas, Appellees/Cross-Appellants
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 29, 1996
- **Citations:** 672 A.2d 1062; 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 23; 1996 WL 87436
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Ruiz
- **Judges:** Ferren, Ruiz, Kern
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9757580

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked

## Opinion text

RUIZ, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I have one disagreement with the reasoning in the majority’s opinion. In my view the trial court correctly directed a verdict in favor of Kozy Korner on R & D’s claim of fraud because the essence of R & A’s claim is grounded on a breach of contract for the sale of a commercial business. What is in dispute in this ease is not whether one party “misled” the other into entering a lease agreement to its detriment. Cf. Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (reversing trial court’s grant of a directed verdict striking fraud counts against realtor and termite inspection company that deceived prospective home buyer by withholding information about extent of termite damage in home in order to induce purchase contract between prospective home buyer and home seller). What is in dispute in the instant case is what were the terms of a contract that both parties acknowledge existed between them. The parties’ oral understanding that the payments were to purchase the business, and not just for rent, are as much a part of their contract as the written lease agreement and can be considered by the court for the reasons set out in footnote 8 of the majority’s opinion. Therefore, I concur with the majority that, on remand, the trial court should consider whether the facts alleged as a basis for the fraud claim, if proven, make out a contract claim. Because Kozy Korner has been well aware of all the facts alleged by R & A as the basis for its claims, I perceive no *1075 unfairness in allowing R & A to refocus its action exclusively on a contract theory.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757580. Public record. Not legal advice.