Molfino v. Levinson Produce Co.

California Court of Appeal May 8, 1947 No. Civ. 3574Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint for rescission of a contract based on fraud must allege facts showing that the contract was unfair or resulted in damage to the plaintiff. Because the plaintiff failed to allege any injury or damage resulting from the alleged misrepresentation, the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

Issues

Whether a complaint for rescission of a contract based on fraud must allege resulting damage or injury to the plaintiff.
Whether the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged that the contract was unfair or resulted in damage.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is well established in California that in order to enable the plaintiff to secure the cancellation of a contract for fraud or deceit some damage or injury must have resulted or be bound to result from the fraud.”

“fraud, unproductive of injury, ‘will not justify a rescission, nor support an action either for rescission or damages. .'. .’”

“As the amended complaint failed to even indicate that the contract was unfair or that plaintiff had suffered any injury or damage from it, it failed to state a cause of action for rescission.”

MARKS, J.

This is an action to rescind a contract for the sale of a crop of muscat grapes on the ground of fraud. A general and special demurrer to an amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Judgment was entered for defendants and this appeal followed.

Plaintiff was the grower and defendants were the purchasers of the crop.

On August 13, 1946, the parties entered into the following contract:

“Sam Levinson & E. J. Glueck bought Aug. 13 from S. F. Molfino all muscats on his ranch 6 miles West of Strathmore for $67.50 per ton roadside—Buyers to pick

furnish swampers to load—seller to furnish tractor and trailer without any expense to" buyer—$1000 deposit to remain until all grapes test—and to buyers to pay balance by certified scale weights —grower to water

sulphur as necessary. Approximately 14 acres.”

The only misrepresentation alleged is as follows:

“That in order to induce said plaintiff S. F. Molfino, to make said sale, the defendant, Sam Levinson, falsely and fraudulently represented to the said plaintiff, S. F. Molfino, that one Tasker, a person well versed and well informed in the market of Muscat Grapes and who was formerly a grape buyer by trade all of which was known to said Sam Levinson and S. F. Molfino, had sold to said Sam Levinson his Musfcat Grapes at the price of $60.00 per ton.”

There is no allegation in the pleading from which the inference could be drawn that the contract was unfair, or resulted in any damage or injury to plaintiff or that $67.50 per ton was not the reasonable market value of the grapes at the time of the sale.

The parties here were dealing at arm’s length and there was no fiduciary relationship existing between them. Under such circumstances it is well established in California that in order to enable the plaintiff to secure the cancellation of a contract for fraud or deceit some damage or injury must have resulted or be bound to result from the fraud. (4 Cal.Jur. 776.) In

Neet

Holmes,

25 Cal.2d 447 [154 P.2d 854], it is said:

Molfino v. Levinson Produce Co.

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief