426 So. 2d 65 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1983
David PINZL and Diana Pinzl, Appellants,
v.
Donald LAPOINTE and Deliah Lapointe, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
*66 Edward A. Broyles, Forest City, for appellants.
Mark O. Cooper of Bornstein, Petree, Brooks, Cooper & Marks, Orlando, for appellees.
SHARP, Judge.
We reverse this judgment which dismissed appellants' amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action in fraud or misrepresentation. The lower court ruled that, because the complaint alleged the appellants knew of a discrepancy between the accountant's figures on gross income and the appellees' figures, as a matter of law they waived their claim against appellees. Reliance on misrepresentations and a duty to inquire are usually determinations for the trier of fact.[1] Here the complaint further alleged that the appellants were repeatedly assured that the appellees' figures on gross income were correct not the accountant's. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and this cause remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, J., and BROWNLEE, JACKSON O., Associate Judge, concur.
NOTES
[1] See, e.g., Regnvall v. Sayle, 45 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1950); Butts v. Dragstrem, 349 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Cath-Art Products Co., Inc. v. Bornman, 260 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Gonzalez v. Patane, 234 So.2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Warner v. Harris Miami Beach, Inc., 219 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
