Skip to main content

Fraudulent Inducement of Contracts and a Party's Duty of Due Diligence

In a recent case, a restaurant (a business entity that owned/operated a restaurant) leased a building from the landowner. Sometime afterwards, the restaurant claimed it had been fraudulently induced into signing the lease (the decision refers to a "contract and lease") and sued the landowner for rescission (to undo) of the lease based on the fraudulent inducement.

A claim of fraudulent inducement means the offending party lied (made misrepresentations of fact) to you to get you to sign a contract; you did not find out the other party lied until after you signed the contract; you have been damaged by the fraudulent inducement; and now you want out of the contract. (The decision doesn't get into what the supposed misrepresentations were.)

However, part of a court's analysis is "buyer beware", you better have done your homework, your due diligence*, before signing the contract. In this case, the appeals court said the restaurant could have found out the landowner was making misrepresentations because the necessary information wasn't solely in the landowner's possession:
Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the alleged misrepresented facts were matters peculiarly within the defendants' knowledge, which they could not have discovered by the exercise of "ordinary intelligence". 
The restaurant also sought rescission of the contract on a theory of "mistake of fact." But for the same reasons, the court said no, you restaurant failed to show that you did your homework, which would have cleared up any supposed mistake of fact:
In addition, inasmuch as the plaintiffs seek to rescind the contract and lease on the ground of a unilateral mistake of fact, they failed to establish the exercise of ordinary care in relation thereto, and, thus, failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law rescinding the contract and lease on that ground.
The restaurant may be able to prove all of its claims at a trial, but the lower court, and the appeals court, said it failed to prove its claims on summary judgment (a mini-trial, on paper). You can win on fraudulent inducement claims, but you have to show you did your homework before signing the contract.

*Using "due diligence" here in its broad/common meaning; "due diligence" and "ordinary intelligence" can mean different things
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Developments: Lawsuit Against School District for a Bus Monitor Abusing a Special Needs Child

The parents of a child "who suffers from severe mental disabilities" sued the Beacon City School District, in Dutchess County, alleging that a bus monitor physically and mentally abused their child. The parents sued the School District for, among other things, assault, battery, and negligent supervision. The case went through the fact-finding phase (called "discovery"), and the School District made a motion to dismiss at least some of the claims. The motion was granted, but an appeals court reversed the lower court.  The appeals court first noted that  [s]chools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision and  [t]he standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more