History
  • No items yet
midpage
Jacques v. Roy
144 Conn. 737
Conn.
1956
Check Treatment
Pee Curiam:.

We have examined the testimony in the plaintiffs’ appendix which is made the basis for the claim that the finding should be corrected. We find nothing to support the claim that the statements by the defendant as to what he paid for the property or what he expected as a profit in reselling it were relied upon by the plaintiffs in making the purchase. The trial court found that these statements were not relied upon. Reliance upon claimed fraudulent representations is an essential element of an action for damages for such representations, and the failure of the plaintiffs to establish that reliance is fatal to their action. Bradley v. Oviatt, 86 Conn. *73863, 67, 84 A. 321. The plaintiffs do not seek a cancellation of the contract hut an adjustment of the purchase price by judicial decree. The record presents no basis for the suggested interference.

There is no error.

Case Details

Case Name: Jacques v. Roy
Court Name: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Date Published: Dec 27, 1956
Citation: 144 Conn. 737
Court Abbreviation: Conn.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.