# Crowder v. Memory Hill Gardens, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Alabama · October 2, 1987 · 516 So. 2d 602

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9936085

## Case

- **Full name:** Evelyn R. Crowder v. Memory Hill Gardens, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** October 2, 1987
- **Citations:** 516 So. 2d 602; 1987 Ala. LEXIS 4595; 1987 WL 1424
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Torbert
- **Judges:** Jones, Torbert
- **Cited by:** 40 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/9936085

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that claims for both misrepresentation and suppression require a showing of reasonable reliance

## Opinion text

In order for Mrs. Crowder to have a viable action for the alleged misrepresentation, her reliance on the defendants' statement must have been reasonable. Taylor v. Moorman Mfg. Co. , 475 So.2d 1187 (Ala. 1985). The defendants contend that it was unreasonable for her to rely on the representation because of the "cancel or recall" language on the certificate evidencing Mrs. Crowder's 20% discount. While it perhaps would have been unreasonable for her to believe that she would get a 20% discount, no matter what or when, it was not unreasonable for her to believe, and to rely on the belief, that the 20% discount certificate would not be cancelled or recalled at the very time she tried to use it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9936085. Public record. Not legal advice.