Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. Gibson, No. 3129.
| Docket Nº | No. 3129. |
| Citation | 188 A.2d 348 |
| Case Date | March 01, 1963 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
v.
Eugene C. GIBSON, Appellee.
Page 349
Norman Baum, Washington, D. C., with whom David Edwin Hammer was on the brief, for appellant.
Pierre E. Dostert, Washington, D. C., with whom Samuel C. Borzilleri, Washington. D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
HOOD, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment denying appellant recovery of the purchase price of a television set. The testimony of appellee, largely uncontradicted and evidently accepted by the trial court, was that two days before Christmas he went to appellant's store and looked at a television, that appellant's salesman told him the price was $189 and he agreed to buy it at that price; that a conditional sales contract was filled in and he signed it; that when he arrived at home with the set he looked at his account book (apparently he was not given a copy of the conditional bill of sale) and saw that the stated price was $289, instead of $189, which with carrying charges made a total cost to him of $354.35. As soon as the store reopened after the Christmas holidays appellee returned the set to the store, explaining that the cost was more than he agreed to pay. When the store personnel refused to take back the set, appellee left it there. He paid nothing on account and appellant brought this action for the full amount of $354.35. Trial resulted in a finding for appellee. In denying appellant's post-trial motion for judgment or a new trial, the trial court stated there had been a mutual mistake of fact as to the correct price of the set.
Appellant argues that appellee signed the contract and is bound thereby even if he failed to read it before signing it. Appellant urges us to rule that in this jurisdiction "a contract is still a contract." It is, of course, the general rule that one who signs a contract has a duty to read it and is obligated according to its terms.1 It is also a general rule that no relief can be afforded for a bad bargain or an extravagant purchase improvidently made.2 But another rule requires mutual assent or agreement as an essential element of a contract; and a contract in form may be avoided by a showing that assent was obtained by fraud3 or even misrepresentation falling short of fraud.4 If it is shown that the minds of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Urban Investments, Inc. v. Branham, No. 79-816.
...obligated by its provisions. Diamond Housing Corp. v. Robinson, 257 A.2d 492, 493 (D.C. 1969); Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. Gibson, 188 A.2d 348, 349 (D.C. 1963). A contract will be unenforceable, however, if one party's assent was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, or under c......
-
Hart v. Vermont Inv. Ltd. Partnership, No. 94-CV-426
...who signs a contract has a duty to read it and that he is obligated according to its terms." Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. Gibson, 188 A.2d 348, 349 & n. 1 (D.C.1963) (citing 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 137 (1963)). In the absence of fraud or its equivalent, "one is obligated by ......
-
Haynes v. Kuder, No. 90-816.
...may constitute fraud, ... especially where there is a duty to disclose" (citation omitted)); Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. Gibson, 188 A.2d 348, 349 (D.C.1963) (to avoid contract based on defense of fraudulent inducement consisting of material misrepresentations, claimant must prove......
-
Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, No. 08-CV-730.
...is actionable. See, e.g., Diamond Housing Corp. v. Robinson, 257 A.2d 492, 493 (D.C.1969); Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. Gibson, 188 A.2d 348, 349 (D.C.1963). Indeed, at common law, as expressed in the Second Restatement of Contracts, the intent to breach is largely irrelevant. Oren Bar-......
-
Urban Investments, Inc. v. Branham, No. 79-816.
...obligated by its provisions. Diamond Housing Corp. v. Robinson, 257 A.2d 492, 493 (D.C. 1969); Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. Gibson, 188 A.2d 348, 349 (D.C. 1963). A contract will be unenforceable, however, if one party's assent was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, or under c......
-
Hart v. Vermont Inv. Ltd. Partnership, No. 94-CV-426
...who signs a contract has a duty to read it and that he is obligated according to its terms." Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. Gibson, 188 A.2d 348, 349 & n. 1 (D.C.1963) (citing 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 137 (1963)). In the absence of fraud or its equivalent, "one is obligated by ......
-
Haynes v. Kuder, No. 90-816.
...may constitute fraud, ... especially where there is a duty to disclose" (citation omitted)); Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. Gibson, 188 A.2d 348, 349 (D.C.1963) (to avoid contract based on defense of fraudulent inducement consisting of material misrepresentations, claimant must prove......
-
Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, No. 08-CV-730.
...is actionable. See, e.g., Diamond Housing Corp. v. Robinson, 257 A.2d 492, 493 (D.C.1969); Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. Gibson, 188 A.2d 348, 349 (D.C.1963). Indeed, at common law, as expressed in the Second Restatement of Contracts, the intent to breach is largely irrelevant. Oren Bar-......