Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 20748
| Decision Date | 01 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 20748,20748 |
| Citation | 402 P.2d 628,157 Colo. 347 |
| Parties | HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mary Jane ROBSON, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Law, Nagel & Clark, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Caddes & Capra, Denver, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error, Mrs. Mary Jane Robson, will be referred to as Mrs. Robson, or as plaintiff. The plaintiff in error, the Holland Furnace Company, will be referred to as the Company, or as defendant. Mrs. Robson brought this action in the Denver District Court to recover damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of fraudulent representations made by the Company's agents.
The evidence produced at the trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, showed that on November 29, 1960, two of the Company's mechanics came to Mrs. Robson's residence to clean the Holland furnace in her house. They turned the furance off and began to dismantle it. While the furnace was being dismantled, one or two more agents of the Company came to supervise the cleaning.
While the furnace was in pieces on the basement floor, one of the men called Mrs. Robson to the basement and advised her that the furnace was dangerous, and should be replaced. The defects were explained to her in rather technical terms, and she was told that gas would escape as a result of the defects. She became extremely distraught and nervous, and relying on the representations made, decided it was necessary to purchase a new Holland furnace. She made a down payments and signed a promissory note for the balance providing for monthly payments beginning February 1, 1961.
A new model Holland furnace was installed within a few hours, and the Company's agents then left, taking the pieces of Mrs. Robson's old furnace with them. The promissory note which she had signed for the balance due was almost immediately negotiated to the Denver United States National Bank by the Company. An F.H.A. Certificate of Completion dated December 19, 1960, signed by Mrs. Robson and containing the statement that the work and material had been satisfactorily completed, also appears in the record.
Mrs. Robson was 77 years old at the time of the events complained of. Because of two heart attacks, she had recently been in the hospital and was still in a weakened physical condition and she testified that she had told the Company's agents of this. She testified that she was in no condition to be doing business on that day because she was ill. She also testified that it was a very cold day, and the men had turned off her heat. She was cold and concerned that she might not have heat for her house. She said that it took all four of the Company's agents to talk her into the purchase, and that the purchase was forced on her. The following answer of hers at the trial indicates her condition on that day: 'Well, I was in condition--I didn't know what I was doing--I couldn't say, because I was wrought up.'
The complaint was filed on February 2, 1961. It alleged, in substance, that the plaintiff had been induced to enter into a contract for the purchase of the new furnace by the false statements of the defendant's agents as to the condition of her old furnace.
The case was tried to the court, which rendered judgment for the plaintiff. It awarded her damages of $1418.40 with interest at the statutory rate of six per cent from the date the complaint was filed, and exemplary damages of $1000. The Company brought writ of error here, presenting five arguments for our consideration.
The Company first argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the action for the reason that the plaintiff had, by her acts, ratified and condoned the transaction and had thereby waived any action based upon fraud in the inducement of the contract. It is alleged that the ratification of the contract occurred in two ways: (1) she elected to carry out and receive the benefits of the contract, and (2) she signed a Federal Housing Authority completion certificate, dated December 19, 1960, expressing satisfaction with the work done.
The Company argues that ratification of the contract is shown by Mrs. Robson's retention of the new furnace, and her failure to complain immediately about the events of November 29, 1960. But the record here shows that the period of time between the execution of the contract and the filing of the suit was only two months. Moreover, there is evidence to show that shortly after the installation of the furnace Mrs. Robson made an attempt to advise the bank which she thought held that note that she had been defrauded and was not going to pay. When she was unable to communicate with the right bank, she had her attorney file suit.
The Company also argues that since the completion certificate was dated December 19,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Briner v. Hyslop
...v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932, 160 Cal.Rptr. 141, 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347, 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369, 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeik......
-
Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Company
...96, 330 P.2d 142 (1958). In this he is correct and no interest should have been allowed before judgment." In Holland Furnace Company v. Robson (1965) 157 Colo. 347, 402 P.2d 628 a fraud "The trial court also awarded Mrs. Robson interest from the date of filing the complaint. This was error.......
-
Malandris v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
...approved of or participated in the act; or (c) failed to exercise proper care in the selection of its servant. 14 Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 402 P.2d 628, 631 (Colo.); see Ristine v. Blocker, 61 P. 486, 489 (Colo.App.); Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Prentice, 147 U.S. 10......
-
In re Keyworth
...Keeney v. Angell, 92 Colo. 213, 19 P.2d 215 (1933); Moreland v. Austin, 138 Colo. 78, 330 P.2d 136 (1958); and Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347, 402 P.2d 628 (1965). However, in each of those cases the injury was not to the person, but was related to solely pecuniary or property......
-
Punishing Corporations: the Food-chain Schizophrenia in Punitive Damages and Criminal Law
...Id. § 18-1-606(1)(b)-(2)(a). 130. Overland Cotton Mill Co. v. People, 75 P. 924, 926 (Colo. 1904). 131. Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 402 P.2d 628, 631 (Colo. 1965) ("The principal cannot be held liable in exemplary damages for the act of an agent, unless it is shown that it authorized or ......
-
Insurance Bad Faith in Colorado
...procedure. Palmer, supra, note 44. 48. Leidholdt, supra, note 47. 49. Supra, note 30. 50. See also, Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347, 402 P.2d 628 (1965). 51. In one California case, Chodos v. Insurance Co. of America, 126 Cal.App.3d 86, 178 Cal.Rptr. 831 (1981), the court's rul......