Reiniger v. Hassell

California Supreme Court Aug 9, 1932 No. Docket No. L.A. 11060.Published

Before: Tyler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the plaintiff rescinded the contract promptly after discovering fraud, and that the trial court's failure to make an express finding on the issue of promptness was not reversible error because such a finding was necessarily implied by the judgment.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the plaintiff rescinded the contract promptly upon discovery of fraud.
Whether the trial court's failure to make an express finding on the issue of prompt rescission constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question of whether or not a party defrauded has rescinded promptly depends upon all of the facts and ’circumstances of the particular case and this question is one primarily for the trial court to determine.”

“A finding that plaintiff rescinded promptly upon becoming aware of defendant’s fraud is necessarily implied from the findings and decision of the lower court.”

TYLER, J.,

pro

tem.

Action for rescission of a contract. The facts show that on the fourteenth day of July 1923, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement whereby defendant agreed to sell and plaintiff agreed to buy an interest in a certain oil and gas lease. The complaint charged that defendant made false and fraudulent representations concerning the acreage of the land covered by the lease, and its location with reference to certain producing wells. The trial court found, upon sufficient evidence, that all of the representations made by defendant were false and untrue and were so made for the purpose of inducing plaintiff to enter into the agreement. The court further found that 'on October 10, 1923, plaintiff gave notice of rescission and demanded the return of the money she had paid. Judgment' was accordingly rendered against defendant for the sum of $4,640, principal and interest, and from this judgment defendant appeals.

The first point urged for a reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to show or justify the court in deciding in effect that plaintiff rescinded promptly upon the discovery of the alleged fraud, for the reason that the evidence shows without conflict that plaintiff discovered such alleged fraud at least seventy-two days prior to the time of serving her notice of rescission. There is no merit in this contention. It appeared in evidence that within a few days after plaintiff had entered into the contract she became suspicious of defendant’s good faith and demanded a return of her money. Defendant informed her that he did not have it at that time but would procure it for her. The agreement having been mutually rescinded, plaintiff waited until October 1st for defendant to fulfill his promise. He not having done so, she then gave defendant formal notice of rescission. Under such circumstances we cannot say that the evidence is insufficient to justify the implied finding that plaintiff acted promptly. Where a party protests promptly on discovering that he has been defrauded in making a contract, and enters into negotiations for a peaceable settlement, which fail, a complaint filed within a reasonable time after such

[211]

failure is not. barred by laches.

(Cooper

Reiniger v. Hassell

AI Brief

TYLER, J.,

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief