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

Law Commons

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

Contracts

1936

Fraud

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Quasi-Contract As An Alternative Remedy For Inducing Breach Of Tort Nov 1936

Quasi-Contract As An Alternative Remedy For Inducing Breach Of Tort

Michigan Law Review

In an action for money had and received, plaintiff alleged that the International Railroad Company owed plaintiff $40,000 as compensation for services rendered under an existing and valid contract of employment; that with knowledge of this fact defendant corporation, representing that it, and not plaintiff, was entitled to this sum, fraudulently conspired with International Railway Company that this sum be paid defendant instead of plaintiff, and that said amount was paid defendant, resulting in unjust enrichment under circumstances in which the law implies a promise on defendant's part to pay said sum to plaintiff. In reversing a judgment sustaining a …


Quasi-Contracts-Joinder Of Misrepresenting Agent In Purchaser's Action Against Principal For Rescission Feb 1936

Quasi-Contracts-Joinder Of Misrepresenting Agent In Purchaser's Action Against Principal For Rescission

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff was induced to purchase stock in defendant corporation through representations as to its previous earning power made by agents of the corporation who were also joined as defendants. Plaintiff sued on a theory of rescission to recover the value of property transferred in exchange for the stock in question. Held, the agents of the corporation were properly joined as defendants. Kaufman v. Jaffee, 244 App. Div. 344,279 N. Y. S. 392 (1935).


Contracts-Misunderstanding-Misrepresentation Of The Contents Of A Written Offer Jan 1936

Contracts-Misunderstanding-Misrepresentation Of The Contents Of A Written Offer

Michigan Law Review

Ordinarily, a man who signs a written contract is bound by its terms in the absence of a misrepresentation of the contents of the writing or mutual mistake, although he may be under a misapprehension in regard to what the writing contains. This is true though the signer cannot read because of illiteracy or blindness. The law, proceeding on an objective theory of mutual assent, holds that it is his duty to read, or, if unable to do so, to get someone else to read for him. But, while unilateral misunderstanding not known to or caused by the other party …