King Sales Co. v. McKey, No. 38797
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | FRANKUM; TOWNSEND, P. J,, and JORDAN |
| Citation | 104 Ga.App. 63,121 S.E.2d 48 |
| Parties | KING SALES COMPANY, Inc. et al. v. Minnie McKEY |
| Docket Number | No. 38797,No. 2 |
| Decision Date | 28 June 1961 |
Page 48
v.
Minnie McKEY.
Page 49
Syllabus by the Court.
1. 'A promise to do a certain thing for the benefit of the promisee, made to induce his entrance into a contract, the promisee earnestly believing that he would receive the benefits consequent upon the fulfillment of the promise, when at the time of making the promise there was no intention on the part of the promisor to fulfill it, but on the contrary the promise was made with intent not to fulfill it and was uttered as a mere scheme or device to defraud, is such a fraud as will void any contract induced thereby. A promise thus fraudulently made will authorize rescission of a written instrument purporting to be a contract.' Coral Gables Corp. v. Hamilton, 168 Ga. 182(8), 147 S.E. 494.
2. The plaintiff's petition does not set forth a cause of action upon the basis of false statements concerning the deleterious effects resulting from eating food prepared in aluminum cookware.
3. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendants' demurrers, except as to certain grounds of their special demurrer discussed in the body of this opinion.
4. There is no question before this court relative to the plea of an estoppel by judgment or the plea of res judicata.
[104 Ga.App. 64] Minnie McKey filed suit in the Civil Court of Fulton County against King Sales Co., Inc. and Roy C. King. The following presents a dondensed statement of all that is material to an understanding of the questions raised in this appeal and our decision thereon.
Briefly, the petition contains allegations that the defendant King came to the plaintiff's residence and set out on a wilful, false, fraudulent, and deceitful scheme
Page 50
which was calculated to and did mislead the plaintiff, viz., that the use of plaintiff's aluminum cookware, which the plaintiff then owned and used, would inflict the plaintiff and her seven children with cancer, anemia, and various other diseases, whereby the plaintiff was persuaded to purchase from King Sales Co., Inc. a set of stainless steel cookware. In furtherance of this scheme, defendant King exhibited to the plaintiff a volume containing what King knew to be false and deceitful testimonials of sham medical experts to the effect that the use of aluminum cookware causes cancer; that the defendant King then requested permission to use one of plaintiff's aluminum boilers, filled it with water and put some substance which he claimed to be soda in the water and applied sufficient heat to bring the water to a boil; that the defendant King then poured a portion of the liquid into a glass which he had the plaintiff to taste; that this substance was extremely bitter, and the defendant King represented to the plaintiff that this was a cancer-producing substance which mixed with and became a part of any food prepared in aluminum cookware; and that in order for the plaintiff to protect herself and her children from this dreaded menace she should purchase and use a set of stainless steel cookware being offered for sale by the defendant King, as agent of King Sales Co., Inc.The defendant King proposed to the plaintiff that she pay $249.95, plus sales tax, for a set of stainless steel cookware which he was, in acting for the corporation, offering to sell to her, and he informed the plaintiff that the payments would be $16 per month. The plaintiff informed the defendant King that [104 Ga.App. 65] she would be unable to make the monthly payments, and defendant King informed her that she could work for the defendant corporation from 4 p. m. until 6:30 p. m., two days out of each week, and that the defendant corporation would compensate her by either making the payments on the note, hereinafter described, or pay her in cash whereby she could make payments on the note. In reliance upon the wilful, fraudulent and false representations made by the defendant King, believing the representations to be true, the plaintiff accepted immediate delivery of a set of stainless steel cookware and signed a note, as hereinafter described.
Thereafter, a woman came to the plaintiff's home, identifying herself as Mr. King's wife, and informed the plaintiff that she would carry her to the office of the defendant corporation for the purpose of filling out insurance papers and picking up a coupon book; that the woman took the plaintiff to the office of the Franklin Finance Co. instead of the office of the defendant corporation; that the plaintiff was informed by a certain named agent of the Franklin Finance Co. that Mr. King was going to pay the plaintiff's insurance and make the first two payments on the note to be given for the purchase price of the stainless steel cookware; that before signing the papers at the office of Franklin Finance Co., plaintiff informed the agent of Franklin Finance Co. that she had been informed that she could make the payments by working for the King Sales Co., Inc. two evenings each week, and the agent of the Franklin Finance Co. reassured the plaintiff that she could still do this. The plaintiff thereupon signed the note.
Plaintiff further alleges that at the time she signed the note at the Franklin Finance Co. she still believed and relied on the representations made by defendant King. Approximately three days after she signed the note, the plaintiff called the defendant King and inquired as to when she should report for work, and 'he thereupon informed her that he had received his money, that the plaintiff owed him nothing, that she owed Franklin Finance Company, and abruptly hung up the telephone'; approximately one week after the conversation, plaintiff again called the defendant King and informed him that unless she [104 Ga.App. 66] could work in accordance with their agreement, she could not pay for the merchandise, and that if she could not work, please come
Page 51
by and pick up the merchandise. Defendant King 'again informed plaintiff that he had received his money and that she owed Franklin Finance Company and not King Sales Co., Inc.'; approximately two weeks after the second conversation the plaintiff again called the defendant King and...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Mitchell, Nos. 59358
...and restores or offers to restore whatever of value he has received by virtue of the contract.' (Cits.)" King Sales Co., Inc. v. McKey, 104 Ga.App. 63, 67, 121 S.E.2d 48, 51 (1961). " 'When a vendee is induced to enter into a contract for the purchase of land by the fraud of the vendor, whe......
-
Gilreath v. Argo, No. 50598
...§ 20-502 must be fraud which induced the parties to enter the contract. Smith v. Newton, 59 Ga. 113(5); King Sales Co., Inc. v. McKey, 104 Ga.App. 63(1), 121 S.E.2d 48. Here, the statement by Oliver was made after the lease had been Furthermore, the representation which forms the basis for ......
-
Vaughan v. Oxenborg, No. 39197
...as will void any contract induced thereby.' Coral Gables Corporation v. Hamilton, 168 Ga. 182(8), 147 S.E. 494; King Sales Co. v. McKey, 104 Ga.App. 63, 67, 121 S.E.2d 48. Taking the petition as true, these defendants entered into a wilful and malicious conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff o......
-
DeKellis v. Microbilt Corp., No. 96-16867
...on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations. See Lister v. Scriver, 456 S.E.2d 83, 86 (Ga.Ct.App.1995); King Sales Co. v. McKey, 121 S.E.2d 48, 52 (Ga.Ct.App.1961); Alpha Kappa Pai Bldg. Corp. v. Kennedy, 83 S.E.2d 580, 583 (Ga.Ct.App.1954). There cannot be justifiable reliance on precont......
-
Price v. Mitchell, Nos. 59358
...restores or offers to restore whatever of value he has received by virtue of the contract.' (Cits.)" King Sales Co., Inc. v. McKey, 104 Ga.App. 63, 67, 121 S.E.2d 48, 51 (1961). " 'When a vendee is induced to enter into a contract for the purchase of land by the fraud of the vendo......
-
Gilreath v. Argo, No. 50598
...§ 20-502 must be fraud which induced the parties to enter the contract. Smith v. Newton, 59 Ga. 113(5); King Sales Co., Inc. v. McKey, 104 Ga.App. 63(1), 121 S.E.2d 48. Here, the statement by Oliver was made after the lease had been Furthermore, the representation which forms the basis for ......
-
Vaughan v. Oxenborg, No. 39197
...as will void any contract induced thereby.' Coral Gables Corporation v. Hamilton, 168 Ga. 182(8), 147 S.E. 494; King Sales Co. v. McKey, 104 Ga.App. 63, 67, 121 S.E.2d 48. Taking the petition as true, these defendants entered into a wilful and malicious conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff o......
-
DeKellis v. Microbilt Corp., No. 96-16867
...on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations. See Lister v. Scriver, 456 S.E.2d 83, 86 (Ga.Ct.App.1995); King Sales Co. v. McKey, 121 S.E.2d 48, 52 (Ga.Ct.App.1961); Alpha Kappa Pai Bldg. Corp. v. Kennedy, 83 S.E.2d 580, 583 (Ga.Ct.App.1954). There cannot be justifiable reliance on precont......