Torts

Front 1

Saxby v. Southern Lance Co.

Back 1

- fraud misrepresentation
- in cases of opninion when we are trying to distinquish between what was actually said and the context of it.
- What influences the courts was that we are only talking about pecuniary loss.
- we started with that reluctance, it was seen in stretching to see that it was an opinion
- what is this not an opinion? To that fact that is does not have 150- the difference between 120 and 150 is something that we would want damages fore
- anytime there is anything that suggest that the D is approximating it is an opinion and we are not going to recognize.
- Because he said “at least” and “about” means that you have to rely on someone else as you value this property and not someone else.

6d- courts will encourage reliance on an opinion, we will see that because we will allow the court to prevail on an action that is based on opinon where we have special relationships with fiduciary. We want you to enter into relationships with the D.

Front 2

Vulcan Metals Co. v. Simmions

Back 2

- fraud alleging that the D lied. What did D lie about the excellance of the machine.. puff sounds like an opinion
- they said that the vacuum had never been put on the market that is a statement of fact. Whether or not that is material to the deal. Wheather or not it caused reasonable reliance. This is largely determined by the jury. All the other statements were opinion puffing something other than what a reasonable person would rely on.
- Reliance on a lie might be unreasonable.

Front 3

Sorenson

Back 3

- what facts make Sorenson different from Saxby and forbes
- it included law into the statement of it makes it murky because you can’t rely on someone’s statement of law.
- The general public is not suffisticated in the law enough to rely on it. We are all expected to know the law we are all capable, so we should not take someone elses representation of the law.
- If that is the principle that guide us in these law representation claims. We have to determine if this is representing the law or representing something else.
- Whether or not it met code was largely irrelevant. Regardless of the consequesnces of the misrep. This is not concerning what the code requires but this is a misrep considering of the building.
- It was reasonable for the P to rely on the owners representation concerning the builders representation.
- Representations concerning the law you can not rely on for purposes of recovering unless it was a representation by a lawyer.

Front 4

PREDICTION and INTENTION

Back 4

- misrepresentation that is going to transpire in the future
- I am going to file the necessary paper work to use the property in a certain way. I plan on paying you and paying off the mortgage
- What makes these cases interest- gets into those areas where we are talking about opinion and predicting things
- You can’t claim that you have been douped because this should have been obvious that this is something that could have occurred in the future
- If we are trying to determine if it is a bright line rule. Is that court saying in some circumstances. There is no bright line prohibition. The court will look to see if the D had control over the aspects that had to take place for something to happen in the future
- If the d did have exclusive control over the outcome in the future. Then the qu is when the D made the statement did the D itend on seeing the promise come through, or did he not intende to come through with it

Front 5

DAMAGES

Back 5

Hinkle case-
- car without AC- what would he like to recover? How are we going to measure his award?
o The cost of putting the air conditioning in.
o $6,000 is the cost to repair the car the value of the car is 10,000
o Paid 12,000- 10,000 = 2,000 out of pocket
o Benefit of the bargan- the real value is 14,000 but you got it for 12,000. The Bof B is the acual value and what value of the car

Front 6

DAMAGES

Back 6

DECEIT case
- you can get the cost of the repair depends on the decite and the big difference is between the good care and bad

Less Culpable
- the options available to use are fewer. The two thousand out of pocket is what you get. Influenced by the actual cost and the amount of damages that you have between them and the measures that you are looking for

- if you are tyring to get the greater award as to why this lie was a big lie and why you should be able to recover the larger amount.

Front 7

FINAL

Back 7

THE PRODUCT IS A LIGHTER
- not expected to go through a warning analysis
- MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN
- PAY ATTENTION TO THE TWEN PAGES!!!!!!!!!