*1
involving Supreme Court of Utah. clear company, it seems himself Aug. 3, 1956. “conducting his on his the bond conditioned fraud,” was in- without businеss as dealer while through fraud require a loss
tended public, selling buying and
dealing with the contemplate that the certainly not bond, dealing with himself on the
principal car, selling a in-
only buying the Dalton category. As to in such
cluded
transaction, charged bank is fraud, to constitute actionable
principle reasonably must acted representee representation made,— on the relying stupidly blindly, or without reasonable apparent that the bank It becomes
caution. principle, and with such should charged recover, pointed it is out that a genuine Dalton examination
casual the promissory found note
signatures mortgage not the chattle same signature Dalton found purрorted
aas the trial I believe court should check. affirmed.
WORTHEN, J., concurs the results of
HENRIOD’S, J., concurring and dissenting
opinion. *2 Wallace, Black, &
Rawlings, Roberts City, appellants. Salt Lake Brady Flanders, R. and Dean E. R. Salt City, respondents. Lake first year plaintiffs observed McDonough, justice. chief alfalfa, corn, oats, it, crop raise a real uniform Plaintiffs entered into a acre- barley, totalling cultivated wheаt purchase estate contract with defendants to thirty-five age of least hundred one Utah, in County, ranch in Millard Admittedly, acres, orchards. four $40,000, price August, for a total average year provided than better moved They installments. and, unfortu- supply of water to this area stayed for September and the ranch in onto pro- Cole, nately following for Mr. off then moved or three months and two time During the less than normal. vided because, avail- they alleged, water was suit, receiver pendency of spring, They following able. returned the appointed lаnd ranch for the place could determined that the irrigated in 1954. cultivated water, and farmed because lack of during hence, land not cultivated considering Cole, he was at the time December, that summer. ranch, taken brought action rescind the Mr. Parker see sourcе of the paid prior tract recover that he in the mountains. testified He contract, alleging that time way” and hence taken roundabout “a *3 fraudulently defendant, Parker, the Harold opportunity where given was not the to see falsely representing by induced by lost told watеr the and supply water adequate of that there anwas the always creek contained Parker that the - pasture. and premises agriculture for the it, ap- flowing amount of water then counter- Defendants denied the The proximately feet. five second four cоurt declare the claimed to the defendant, Parker, that Harold denies paid for- and the 'tract cancelled attempted the fault denies conceal to in favor of trial court ruled feited. The to the statement attributed that $11,600-paid forfeited the defendants him. аdmits a discus- He that there was plaintiffs. by the the water, by wit- sion of as testified other the nesses, suggestion including a if the that irrigation that is parties agree es- All portion creek were lined a its course of area of the land that value sential to the would it deliver more water thе ranch. to supply must from water come and that the appears plaintiffs considerably paid It that through Creek. nearby mountains Hendrie’s expert’s appraisal than the more fault water is lost Much of the property, appears value of the but it also val- mountains the gravel between the situated, years previous ap- that for six the had ranch ley ranch the families, supported consisting the two available in enough water was parently . defendant, month, people. Harold question it twelve The was held that the Parker, returns upon rеpresenta- testified that tax he filed reasonable the reliance paid averaging question on an tions deter- taxes of fact to be $1,200 per stand- although jury. he claimed mined the therein The court or, children; eight ard stated: deductions for his portion of
that the from his net income “No inexperi- matter how naive or property $7,200 per year. There were, enced could defendants from is no evidence as to net income eyes unques- not close accept portion occupied parents, tioningly any represеntations made to other here. defendants them. duty It was their make to investigation inquiry cir-
The claim these as reasonable that under cumstances, care under trial court committed error circumstances dictate; required that there was fraud on them part They urge inquiry that furthеr concerning defendants. income, so, all obligated reveal defendants were the extent thereof jury concerning loss for the circumstances determine.” ranch, in- reached the it before The case was tried highest was at its asmuch as the water court, sitting jury. without a infer inspection and at the value the time arising ences from the evidence dependent upon avail- land was True, serious expert conflict. there were ability of water. opinions that the value of at plaintiffs’ agree we with the time of While was not the a materiаl nondis that and that could cited authorities not be rented to “good operator” any price. or a half-truth the basis closure On the other hand, positive well as on fraud action had an before it evidence A.L.I. Restatement farm representation, had been prоducing in sufficient Torts, agree support we come large sec. family Law of do six years. did not obviously the seller discuss Mr. Cole because apply water, industry cause the loss of particularity the nor did he have back *4 liberty ground buyer at rescind con in farming is his which had the enabled the White, 2 Lewis v. Indeed, of to live off the In the case Parkers ap tract. land. it 865, 866, pears there 101, P.2d where major 269 that 2d Cole’s Utah during efforts pro occupied that the assertion the time he an the ranch was were direct month, $1,000 per toward reaping an income ed the duced crops harvest of per actual income which $225 the had been sown and by whereas nurtured the
267 by damages policies expressed year Ac- the of 1952. under during Parkers the 62 Utah Malmberg Baugh, v. expert, court plaintiffs’ a real estate cording to 975; Jensen, 86 Utah 218 P. v. Croft salеsman, property would not have been the 198; Hansen, 117 Young 40 P.2d v. had been if the water worth over 666; Spen Utah v. P.2d Perkins plentiful every year as it cer, also, “For Utah, 243 plaintiff appear P.2d it would 446. See viewed it. Thus by the feitures Real Installment being deluded fact Under Estate than that rather by Brigitte Boden at the Contracts Utah” M. flowing the creek that heimer, Review, labor- Utah Law 30. purchase, Mr. Cole time land misapprehension as to ing determining The criteria a suc- ability values his own penalty in a contract amounts to farm entered when he cess by damages fair estimаte of or a sustained obtaining spent time transaction. He upon vendor a breach of contract the value independent advice as to was outlined Perkins case by and, though told he was farm even supra. It Spencer, is there stated that between a water lоss seller that there forfeiture, time of the court will ranch, he creek and source following approxi- consider the elements much loss occurred investigate how did not damage suffered mating the the vendor: Under loss. preventing the the cost of nor advantageous “1. Loss of an bar-' circumstances, trial court these gain; in- there was no finding that Any damage depreciation “2. determination, upon con- such a volved and property; un- set aside evidence, will not flicting the court Any appears thát “3. decline manifestly value less find- prop- оr made proven change facts in market value of misapplied 2; evi- weight of erty in items Nos. clearly not allowed against ings Horne, 1 during Utah 2d “4. fair value For the rental Kartchner dence. period occupancy.” received, trial defendants Plaintiffs contend further Plaintiffs deprived, of certain vir- sums $11,600 paid therefore forfeiting the erred in e., through sales of the contract —i. view tue It their by them. is produce; plaintiffs pose ques- farm scope Item 1 in its tion whether covers only lasted which possession, one situations as the months, must excessive threе buyer agreed pay liquidated double the value than penalty rather aas strued *5 268 does, pervise the real estate. If it then the decisions the business paid by appellants may
amount con- world grant be relief the bargain compensation proves sidered improvidеnt. to as the seller bargain. loss his Thus, in the of a absence fraud, credited, the seller is entitled to be Except special circumstanc computation es, damage sustained fiduciary obligations between exist contract, because of the breach of the buyer Dyke any property, seller difference between price 344, Zaiser, Cal.App.2d 639, 80 182 P.2d price for which he can sell forfeited present indica and the case furnishes no property. that, according fact to any relationship tion of what confidential plaintiffs’ evidеnce, this exceeds the amount parties soever and indicates that the paid fur the contract forecloses competent deal to contract and at arms inquiry ther as to or for not the circumstances, length. has Under such feiture properly of the contract will many been stated that the times assessed damages the actual by the suffered inquire adequacy considera defendants. legally sufficient, tion if it O’Neill Co., 592, P. Mutual Life 51 172 Ins. Utah respondents. Affirmed. Costs to 306; Casualty Moruzzi v. & Federal Life WADE, JJ., CROCKETT and concur. 320,
Co.,
42 N.M.
75
115 A.L.R.
P.2d
407;
Cal.App.
Hing,
Seth v. Lew
WORTPIEN,
(concurring in the
Justice
Appellants
“That because vendee’s failure foreclosed of the rescind elected to pay, would not we interfere becausе contract real uniform the said estate got property vendor sale sheriff’s writing notified the defendants and kept payment still even made or contract had rescinded said *» * * deficiency judgment took in addition thereto. substantial When vendor has received payment instаllments Had defendants here the Per-
amounts
down
not
sued
judgment
kins case
and taken a
for
defaulted —but
the vendee has
past
payments
vendor
called
for
rescinded
contract —and
agreement
property
in a sum-
asked
seeks
back
take
impressed
same,
with a liеn for the
mary
amounts
we
manner
to retain
also'
probably
obliged
portion,
permit
which often constitute a substantial
equity
to suffer further
most,
vendee
losses.
purchase price,2
generally
some
my opinion
well and
should afford
this case does not fall
But when the vendee
relief
the vendee.
class
Malmberg
within
cases such as
sharp
charges
with
Baugh,3
the vendor
and other
cases where relief 1.
and rescinded although
opinion the line of such cases should entire pro- reexamined either with view of es-
hibiting any forfeiture cases that
tablishing rationale in such whim of dependable
more than the
judge attempting to a new parties reimbursement as to buyer’s
seller breach. because of the
HENRIOD, J., agrees the conclu- opinion also the main
sion reached WORTHEN’S, J., reasoning
with the opinion.
concurring P.2d 628 *7 VALLEY, THE GARDENS OF
MEMORIAL Inc., corporation, Plaintiff Appellant, Director, LOVE, Commis Securities
M. H. Utah, Ben S. and Hal sion of State Hanson, Hacking, nett, M. Stewart Donald Respond Commissioners, Defendants ents, and Embalmers Associa Directors
Funeral corporation, Intervener. tion of
No. 8468.
Supreme of Utah. Court July