Newmark v. H. & H. Products Mfg. Co.

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation128 Cal.App.2d 35,274 P.2d 702
PartiesJack NEWMARK and Bette Newmark, Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. H. AND H. PRODUCTS MFG. CO., a limited partnership; E. F. Henkle and Jane Doe, doing business as H. and H. Products Mfg. Co.; E. F. Henkle, individually, Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. Civ. 20246.
Decision Date08 October 1954

Bridges & Peters, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Goodman & Cogen, Benjamin & Kronick, Los Angeles, for respondents.

McCOMB, Justice.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, on defendants' cross-complaint for fraud and conversion, defendants appeal.

Facts: On March 17, 1951, Artistic Beauty Products Co., hereinafter referred to as 'Seller,' entered into a written agreement with defendants, hereinafter referred to as 'Buyer,' whereby the Buyer agreed to purchase from the Seller certain machinery, fixtures, equipment and tools for the sum of $90,000.00. The Buyer also agreed to pay the Seller for certain leasehold improvements the sum of $25,000.00. A complete itemized inventory of all the personal property purchased by the Buyer from the Seller was attached to the agreement of sale at the time of the execution thereof. Defendant E. F. Henkle had examined and inspected the inventory and all the property described therein prior to his initialing each page of the inventory. The Buyer was represented by an attorney in the negotiations and execution of the agreement of sale and had read the agreement before it was signed.

On March 19, 1951, Seller, as lessor, entered into a lease with the Buyer, as lessee, for a portion of the building located at 300-312 North Avenue 21, Los Angeles, for a term commencing April 16, 1951, and ending May 31, 1953, at a rental of $950.00 per month. Prior to August 5, 1952, the Seller had assigned the aforementioned lease to plaintiffs in the present action.

On August 5, 1952, plaintiffs instituted the present action against the defendants for rent and other charges due under the lease. In this action defendants filed a cross-complaint against the Seller and plaintiffs herein asserting fraud by the Seller and its agents.

The agreement between the Buyer and Seller contained these material provisions:

'1. The Seller does hereby sell to the Buyer, and the Buyer does hereby purchase from the Seller, free and clear of all liabilities and encumbrances, except as specifically herein provided, the following:

'(a) Machinery, fixtures, equipment and small tools, as more particularly described in schedule to be attached hereto, marked 'Exhibit A,' and by reference made a part hereof. Each of the parties hereto shall initial each page of said inventory, indicating approval thereof;

'(b) Leasehold improvements now located on the main floor of premises at 308 North Avenue 21, Los Angeles, California, and consisting generally of conduit, piping, wiring, ventilation, switches, partitions, switch boxes, and other such items attached to and a part of said realty.

'In reference to the items set forth in this provision, it is expressly understood and agreed that the Seller makes no representation or warranty as to the quality or quantity of the foregoing items, and they are being purchased by the Buyer upon its own examination and inspection and in an as-is condition.' * * *

'4. Buyer acknowledges that it has examined and inspected the machinery, fixtures, equipment and small tools which Buyer is purchasing from the Seller, and knows the condition thereof; that it is purchasing all of said personal property upon its own inspection and examination and in an as-is condition.'

In the cross-complaint it is alleged that the Buyers were induced to enter into the agreement of purchase and sale by the following false representations:

(a) 'That said representations were that the five Wickman Swiss Type Automatic Screw Machines, which were included in the personal property so sold, would hold aircraft tolerances.'

(b) 'That said representations were that everything shown to said Cross-complainant when he was inspecting the personal property which he contemplated purchasing, and which he later did purchase, were either listed on the inventory or were too unimportant to be so listed, and were to go to said Cross-defendant if he should consummate said sale.'

After defendants introduced in evidence the agreement of purchase and sale containing the provisions set forth above, plaintiffs objected to the introduction of any further evidence on the causes of action alleging fraud upon the ground that the alleged oral representations of the Sellers set forth above were inconsistent, contradictory and in direct contravention of the provisions of the agreement of purchase and sale which was then in evidence. The trial court sustained plaintiffs' objection to the introduction of such evidence.

Question: Was the trial court's ruling correct?

Yes. Parol evidence of fraud to establish the invalidity of a written instrument induced by a promise made without any intention of performing it is only permissible in the case of a promise to do some additional act...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Pinnacle Peak Developers v. TRW Inv. Corp., 1
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1980
    ...and not mere contradictions of the provisions of the contract expressed in clear, unambiguous language. Newmark v. H. & H. Products Mfg. Co., 128 Cal.App.2d 35, 274 P.2d 702, 703 (1954). Mrs. Johnson's purported representations that appellants would not have to make any more payments and/or......
  • Continental Airlines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 1989
    ... ... (Simmons v. Cal. Institute of Technology (1949) 34 Cal.2d 264, 274-275, 209 P.2d 581; Newmark v. H and H Products Mfg. Co. (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 35, 37-38, 274 P.2d 702; Cobbs v. Cobbs (1942) ... ...
  • Pacific State Bank v. Greene
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 10, 2003 p. 575, 284 P.2d 826.) Lamb Finance, supra, 179 Cal.App.2d at page 502, 3 Cal.Rptr. 877, also relied on Newmark v. H and H Products Mfg. Co. (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 35, 274 P.2d 702, but that case, too, involved promises that were inconsistent with the terms of the agreement. There, the bu......
  • Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Lamb Finance Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 9, 1956
    ...the plain language of the guaranty signed by Mrs. Poyet, as incompetent under the parol evidence rule. In Newmark v. H. & H. Products Co., 128 Cal.App.2d 35, 37, 274 P.2d 702, 703, this court stated: 'Parol evidence of fraud to establish the invalidity of a written instrument induced by a p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT