Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Contracts

1933

Fraud

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Equity - Election Of Remedies - Deceit After Rescission Nov 1933

Equity - Election Of Remedies - Deceit After Rescission

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff purchaser rescinded a contract of sale on the ground of fraud and sued defendants in a deceit action, alleging as damages a payment made on the purchase price and special expense incurred by reason of making the purchase. Held, recovery for both items of damage will be allowed. Copeland v. Reynolds, (N. H. 1933) 164 Atl. 215.


Quasi-Contracts -- Sufficiency Of Technical Benefit Jun 1933

Quasi-Contracts -- Sufficiency Of Technical Benefit

Michigan Law Review

A brokerage house, the R. Co., having purchased stock on margin for the plaintiff, requested a payment of $1100 in order to protect themselves in carrying the account. Doubting the financial stability of R. Co. the plaintiff decided to transfer the account to another firm, the defendant, and accordingly delivered to R. Co. a personal check naming the defendant as payee, at the same time orally directing R. Co. to transfer the stock and check to the defendant and from them receive payment in full. R. Co., however, falsely represented that the check was really theirs and that the plaintiff …


Contracts - Offer And Acceptance - Silence As Acceptance May 1933

Contracts - Offer And Acceptance - Silence As Acceptance

Michigan Law Review

D had engaged P, an attorney, to sue X for $144,000 gotten by fraud, P agreeing to try the case on a 25 per cent contingent fee. While the suit was pending, D began negotiations through local attorneys for a settlement out of court, and asked P on March 4 what his fees would be in the event D accepted a compromise offer. P replied that his fee would be $12,500. On June 16 a settlement was reached, after which P was instructed to discontinue the suit. When D refused to pay the fee P sued. Held, that …


Contracts - Mutual Assent - Misrepresentation Of Contents Of Written Offer Feb 1933

Contracts - Mutual Assent - Misrepresentation Of Contents Of Written Offer

Michigan Law Review

The defendant orally agreed to buy a year's supply of gasoline of the plaintiff, it being understood that the agreement was to be put in writing. Plaintiff's agent presented two documents to the defendant, telling him that they embodied the oral agreement, and the defendant signed without reading them. One of the documents was in form a lease of defendant's filling station to plaintiff at a nominal rent. Plaintiff brought suit, based on the lease, for possession of the premises. Held, the lease is invalid. The defendant's negligence in signing without reading is immaterial. Phillips Petroleum Company v. Roth …