203 N.W. 265 | Iowa | 1925
The appellant Harriet M. Kendall conducted a business college under the name of the Des Moines Commercial College. The plaintiff, appellee, alleging that the appellants had falsely and fraudulently represented to her that "she could 1. FRAUD: false complete a course in shorthand and typewriting, representa- and obtain a position in eight weeks' time, tions: under the expert individual instruction of the matters of defendants' school," sought to recover as prophecy. damages the amount she had paid as tuition.
The representation that appellee could complete the course and obtain a position in eight weeks was no more than a prophecy. It referred only to the future; and its fulfillment, in the very nature of things, depended upon the ability, previous education, industry, and application of the student. The appellee's own testimony showed that she understood this. In a letter which the appellee admitted having received from Miss Kendall before entering the school, she was told:
"You can take this entire course in from eight to twelve weeks."
This statement, standing alone, was not as to an existing fact, but was a mere "puffing," and expression of opinion; and alone was not actionable. Burke v. Berry,
The plaintiff received certain books and supplies, and remained in the school, pursued the course of study, and had the benefit of such facilities and instruction as the school afforded her for five weeks, and then left. It cannot be assumed 3. DAMAGES: that this was of no value, or that she received measure of no benefit from it. Yet the instructions damages: directed that, if she was entitled to deducting recover, the verdict should be for the amount benefits she had paid as tuition, with interest; and this received. the jury awarded her. She was only entitled to her damages, which she alleged was the amount she had paid, after accounting for the reasonable value of the services rendered and supplies furnished her. Van Vliet Fletcher Auto Co. v. Crowell,
The question of the right of the appellee to sue at law without rescinding the contract and returning, or offering to return, what she had received that could be returned, and offering to allow credit for the reasonable value of the instruction she had received, is not before us, and is not determined. *1061
It is unnecessary to consider other errors assigned.
The judgment is — Reversed.
FAVILLE, C.J., and STEVENS, ARTHUR, and De GRAFF, JJ., concur.