Trum v. Melvin Pierce Marine Coating, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Planchard v. U.S. Healthcare Mgmt.

    Civil Action 1:21-cv-551-TFM-B (S.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2025)

    Martin, 516 So.2d at 642 (quoting Purcell Co., 431 So.2d at 519).” 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.”)

  2. 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.');

  3. 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.

  4. US Diagnostic, Inc. v. Shelby Radiology, P.C.

    793 So. 2d 714 (Ala. 2001)   Cited 5 times

    In this case, therefore, the Statute of Frauds does not operate to negate the element of reliance in Shelby's fraudulent-misrepresentation claim. Cf. Trum v. Melvin Pierce Marine Coating, Inc., 562 So.2d 235 (Ala. 1990) (Statute of Frauds precluded a breach-of-contract claim based on alleged breach of an oral, four-year employment contract; nevertheless, a promissory-fraud claim was viable, because the evidence indicated that the defendant never intended to keep the promise). Thus, Shelby presented evidence sufficient to overcome the defendants' motion for a JML on the fraudulent-misrepresentation claim.