holding that a plaintiff must show more than mere failure to perform subsequent to the defendant’s promise
How later courts described this case
- holding that a plaintiff must show more than mere failure to perform subsequent to the defendant’s promise
- concluding that fraudulent inducement occurred when, two weeks before the contract was signed, evidence was presented that showed the defendant intended to break a specific portion of the contract
- holding, in a fraudulent misrepresentation case, that evidence was sufficient to support jury finding that employer did not intend to implement a bonus plan when he orally promised to do so
- holding that summary judgment on fraud claim that company’s president created incentive program to induce two vice-presidents to stay and never intended to implement the incentive program
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WALLACE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
For the reasons set out in the court of appeals opinion, I would hold that there was no evidence to support a jury finding that on December 17, 1979, Jessie Up-church did not intend to keep his promise to Ralph Spoljaric concerning a bonus plan.
The judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.
HILL, C.J., and CAMPBELL and GONZALEZ, JJ., join in this dissent.