Trum v. Melvin Pierce Marine Coating, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. 21St Mortg. Corp. v. Robinson

    No. SC-2023-0304 (Ala. Dec. 20, 2024)

    "Goodyear Tire &Rubber Co. v. Washington, 719 So.2d 774, 776 (Ala. 1998). See also Trum v. Melvin Pierce Marine Coating, Inc., 562 So.2d 235, 237 (Ala. 1990) ('[I]n order for a promise to constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation, there must have been at the time the promise was made an intention not to perform, and such a promise must have been made with the intent to deceive.');

  2. Adkinson v. a a Drywall Supply Co.

    21 So. 3d 1196 (Ala. 2009)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that the likely possibility that the defendant's employee "may have recklessly made statements beyond his authority" and "may have violated [the defendant's] procedures and policies" does not tend to show that the employee intended to deceive the plaintiff

    Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Washington, 719 So.2d 774, 776 (Ala. 1998). See also Trum v. Melvin Pierce Marine Coating, Inc., 562 So.2d 235, 237 (Ala. 1990) ("[I]n order for a promise to constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation, there must have been at the time the promise was made an intention not to perform, and such a promise must have been made with the intent to deceive."); Clanton v. Bains Oil Co., 417 So.2d 149, 151 (Ala. 1982) ("A promise, to constitute fraud, must be made with the intent not to perform it."). Evidence of consistent, but unfulfilled, promises can in some cases amount to substantial evidence of an intent to deceive.

  3. Jamison, Money, Farmer Co. v. Standeffer

    678 So. 2d 1061 (Ala. 1996)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that because evidence concerning defense of equitable estoppel was in dispute, issue was properly presented to jury

    Dr. Standeffer testified that he followed the defendants' advice, which was wrong, not that the defendants failed to do something that could not be done in a year. I would not hold that a duty created by contract would not be subject to a Statute of Frauds defense in a negligence action based upon a breach of that duty. ( Trum v. Melvin Pierce Marine Coating, Inc., 562 So.2d 235 (Ala. 1990), did not address the issue whether a fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a contract that, under its terms, was not capable of being performed in one year was subject to the Statute of Frauds.) I do not believe that Pickard v. Turner, 592 So.2d 1016 (Ala. 1992), which involved a legal malpractice action, addressed the issue whether the Statute of Frauds is a defense to a negligence action based upon a breach of duty created by contract.