Goodwin v. Silverman.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 8697.,8697. |
| Citation | 43 A.2d 50 |
| Parties | GOODWIN v. SILVERMAN. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Charles A. Walsh, Judge.
Action of trespass on the case for deceit by Edward J. Goodwin against Hyman Silverman to recover damages for alleged false representation in connection with the sale of a certain automobile truck. On exception to a decision sustaining a demurrer to the amended declaration.
Exception overruled and case remitted for further proceedings.
Fergus J. McOsker, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Irving Winograd and Frank W. Slepkow, both of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass on the case for deceit to recover damages for an alleged false representation by the defendant in connection with the sale of a certain automobile truck to the plaintiff. The case is now before us on only one exception, by the plaintiff to a decision by a justice of the superior court sustaining the demurrer by the defendant to an amended declaration.
In that declaration the plaintiff alleges that the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented to him that the lowest price for the sale of that truck to the plaintiff was $500. He also alleges that the ‘ceiling price’ of it under the Emergency Price Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 901 et seq., so-called, was considerably less than $500. He does not allege that the defendant misstated to him such ceiling price, but only that he himself was ignorant of it.
He then alleges that he, ‘without knowledge of the false representations,’ purchased the truck for $500; that, having afterwards received knowledge of the falsity of the representations described, he returned the truck to the defendant and demanded from the latter the return of the purchase price, but that the latter refused to return it. The plaintiff asserted that he was therefore entitled to recover the purchase price of $500, with interest. It is obvious, from these statements in the amended declaration, that the plaintiff elected to rescind the contract of sale and to recover the full purchase price on the basis of such rescission.
In Robinson v. Standard Stores, Inc., 52 R.I. 271, at page 273, 160 A. 471, at page 475, this court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halpert v. Rosenthal
...contract to recover what he has paid under it, or he may affirm the contract and sue for damages in an action for deceit. Goodwin v. Silverman, 71 R.I. 163, 43 A.2d 50; Robinson v. Standard Stores, Inc., 52 R.I. 271, 160 A. 471; Moran v. Tucker, 40 R.I. 485, 101 A. The distinction between a......
-
Boisse v. Miller, C.A. WC 2003-0281
...contract and sue for damages in an action for deceit. Id. 107 R.I. at 412, 267 A.2d 733; see also Goodwin v. Silverman, 71 R.I. 163, 164, 43 A.2d 50, 50 (1945) (identifying the choice of remedies available to a plaintiff alleging false representations during contract formation). Deceit is a......
-
Boisse v. Miller
...contract and sue for damages in an action for deceit. Id. 107 R.I. at 412, 267 A.2d 733; see also Goodwin v. Silverman, 71 R.I. 163, 164, 43 A.2d 50, 50 (1945) (identifying the choice of remedies available to a plaintiff alleging false representations during contract formation). Deceit is a......
-
Boisse v. Miller
...contract and sue for damages in an action for deceit. Id. 107 R.I. at 412, 267 A.2d 733; see also Goodwin v. Silverman, 71 R.I. 163, 164, 43 A.2d 50, 50 (1945) (identifying the choice of remedies available to a plaintiff alleging false representations during contract formation). Deceit is a......