Advance-Rumely T. Co., Inc., v. Jacobs

21 Citing cases

  1. Budget Truck Sales, LLC v. Tilley

    163 Idaho 841 (Idaho 2018)   Cited 18 times
    Noting that to sustain a fraud or constructive fraud claim, party must establish element of "the speaker's knowledge about its falsity or ignorance of its truth "

    A contract, including a settlement agreement, that has been procured through the use of fraudulent representations is voidable. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., Inc., v. Jacobs , 51 Idaho 160, 168, 4 P.2d 657, 659 (1931). In its ruling, the district court acknowledged that fraud in the inducement is a ground to rescind a contract, even one that has been fully integrated.

  2. Hawkins v. Chandler

    396 P.2d 123 (Idaho 1964)   Cited 12 times
    Holding lay witness never permitted to give opinion on question of law

    Where the evidence is stated to be introduced for a certain purpose, it should be restricted to that purpose. For it is manifest that any other rule would result in surprise and injustice." Advance-Rumely Thrasher Co., Inc. v. Jacobs, 51 Idaho 160, pg. 169, 4 P.2d 657. The court should refrain from saying anything in the presence of the jury which may improperly influence them, and it is highly improper for a trial judge to comment upon the evidence when said exhibit was offered and admitted into evidence for illustrative purposes only, and purporting to reflect accurately distances.

  3. Summers v. Martin

    77 Idaho 469 (Idaho 1956)   Cited 27 times
    In Summers v. Martin, 77 Idaho 469, 295 P.2d 265 (1956), and in Fuchs v. Lloyd, 80 Idaho 114, 326 P.2d 381 (1958), this court again held that it was incumbent upon the vendor to know the truth of the facts of which he spoke, and that the purchaser was entitled to rely upon representations made by the vendor.

    The clause in the contract that purchaser has examined the premises before purchase and waives any misrepresentations is against public policy and ineffective. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Jacobs, 51 Idaho 160, 168, 4 P.2d 657; J.I. Case Co. v. Bird, 51 Idaho 725, 728, 11 P.2d 966; Utilities Engineering Institute v. Criddle, 65 Idaho 201, 208, 141 P.2d 981; Jordan v. Nelson, Iowa, 178 N.W. 544, 10 A.L.R. 1472. Appellants cannot avoid their representations as to the irrigated acreage and the inclusion of the canyon in the deal merely because respondents might have ascertained the falsity of such representations by reference to public records, if that was possible.

  4. Adams v. U.S.

    622 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Idaho 2009)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting argument that FIFRA preempted state claims: "Indeed, the Court's own examination shows that plaintiffs' claims appear to track FIFRA by alleging that the labels omit necessary warnings, do not contain adequate instructions, and are misleading."

    Liability for misrepresentation may be based on DuPont's statements to others that were intended by DuPont to reach the bellwether plaintiffs. See Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Jacobs, 4 P.2d 657, 660 (Id.Sup.Ct. 1931) ("recovery can be had for representations made to another with the intent or knowledge that they should or would be repeated to complainant"); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 533 (liability for misrepresentation arises if "the maker intends or has reason to expect that its terms will be repeated or its substance communicated to the other and that it will influence his conduct in the transaction . . . involved"). The testimony of bellwether plaintiff Gary Hansen also addresses these issues.

  5. Ernst Young v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance

    51 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2001)   Cited 693 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that aiding and abetting liability could not attach where there was no principal offense

    Hines v. Riverside Chevrolet-Olds, Inc., 655 So.2d 909, 920 (Ala. 1994) (holding that a defendant may be liable for fraud to anyone the defendant specially expected would rely on his misrepresentation); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Newton, 31 A.2d 462, 463 (Conn. 1943) (noting that the principle of indirect reliance "also applies where it is within the contemplation of the person making the representation that it will be communicated to and induce action by anyone of a group or class"); Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Jacobs, 4 P.2d 657, 660 (Id. 1931) (applying a "reason to expect" standard); Highland Motor Transfer Co. v. Heyburn Bldg. Co., 35 S.W.2d 521, 523-24 (Ky.Ct.App. 1931) (same); Oppenhuizen v. Wennersten, 139 N.W.2d 765, 768 (Mich.App. 1966) (same); Freeman v. Myers, 774 S.W.2d 892, 893-94 (Mo.Ct.App. 1989) (same); Epperson v. Roloff, 719 P.2d 799, 803 (Nev. 1986) (holding that liability for fraud can rest on communication of misinformation to an agent, with reason to expect that the agent will communicate that misinformation to third parties); Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 754 A.2d 1188, 1196-97 (N.J. 2000) (distinguishing "indirect reliance," when the plaintiff relies on statements the defendant had reason to expect would reach her, from a "fraud-on-the-market" theory); Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441, 444 (N.Y. 1931) ("To creditors and investors to whom the employer exhibited the certificate, the defendants owed a like duty to make it without fraud, since there was notice in the circumstances of its making that the

  6. Robertson v. Richards

    115 Idaho 628 (Idaho 1989)   Cited 36 times
    In Robertson v. Richards, 115 Idaho 628, 769 P.2d 505 (1987), the trial court refused to give an instruction based on IDJI 205, Instead, the trial court instructed the jury according to I.C. §§ 6-1012 and 6-1013.

    Where the evidence is stated to be introduced for a certain purpose, it should be restricted to that purpose, for it is manifest that any other rule would result in surprise and injustice.Advance-Rumley [Rumely] Thresher Co., Inc. v. Jacobs, 51 Idaho 160, 169, 4 P.2d 657 (1931). * * * * * *

  7. J.I. Case Credit Corporation v. Anderson

    408 P.2d 165 (Idaho 1965)   Cited 5 times

    When seller has specialized knowledge, training and skill unequal to that of buyer, such attempted disclaimers may violate public policy. Heningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, 95. See also: 36 Notre Dame Law Review 233 ('61); Sutter v. St. Clair Motors, Inc., 44 Ill.App.2d 318, 194 N.E.2d 674, 676 ('63); Advance Rumely Thresher Co. v. Jacobs, 51 Idaho 160, 4 P.2d 657; J.I. Case Co. v. Bird, 51 Idaho 725, 730, 731, 11 P.2d 966. Disclaimers are ineffective where the product delivered was not the product represented and ordered.

  8. State v. Anderson

    82 Idaho 293 (Idaho 1960)   Cited 45 times
    In State v. Anderson, 82 Idaho 293, 352 P.2d 972 (1960), this Court held an offense is an included offense if it is alleged in the information as a means or element of the commission of a higher offense.

    State v. White, 7 Idaho 150, 61 P. 517; State v. Dunn, 44 Idaho 636, 258 P. 553; State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202, 239 P.2d 258. "If a party desires other instructions than those given by the court, the same must be requested or no error can be predicated thereon." Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Jacobs, 51 Idaho 160, 4 P.2d 657, 661; Mitchell v. Atwood, 55 Idaho 772, 47 P.2d 680; Pittman v. Sather, 68 Idaho 29, 188 P.2d 600. We deem it advisable to clear the confusion which has arisen as to included offenses.

  9. Paurley v. Harris

    75 Idaho 112 (Idaho 1954)   Cited 32 times
    In Paurley, the plaintiffs, seeking to quiet title according to the metes and bounds description in the deed, claimed they had no knowledge of an agreement concerning the boundaries of the property sold to the defendants by the original owner of plaintiffs' property.

    Hurt v. Monumental Mercury Mining Co., 35 Idaho 295, 206 P. 184; Milner v. Earl Fruit Co., 40 Idaho 339, 232 P. 581; Larsen v. Buys, 49 Idaho 615, 292 P. 239; Fidelity Trust Co. v. State, 72 Idaho 137, 237 P.2d 1058. Fraud or mistake may be shown, in any case, to void or reform a contract. Udelavitz v. Ketchen, 33 Idaho 165, 190 P. 1029; Gould v. Frazier, 48 Idaho 798, 285 P. 673; Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Jacobs, 51 Idaho 160, 4 P.2d 657; Creem v. Northwestern Mut. Fire Ass'n, 56 Idaho 529, 56 P.2d 762; Utilities Engineering Institute v. Criddle, 65 Idaho 201, 141 P.2d 981. Although burdened and commingled with much that is sham and redundant, we think defendants' imperfect pleading of fraud or mistake was sufficient for the admission of the evidence offered, and should not have been stricken.

  10. McDowell v. Geokan

    252 P.2d 1056 (Idaho 1953)   Cited 3 times

    No request was made by appellants for amplification of Instruction No. 9 and, therefore, under the doctrine of the above-cited case, which has been consistently and continuously announced and adhered to, there is no error of which they may now take advantage. In addition to the authorities cited in Abbs v. Redmond, 64 Idaho 369 at page 375, 132 P.2d 1044, are: Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., Inc., v. Jacobs, 51 Idaho 160 at page 173, 4 P.2d 657; Crystal Dome Oil Gas Co. v. Savic, 51 Idaho 409 at page 412, 6 P.2d 155; Weed v. Idaho Copper Co., 51 Idaho 737 at page 760, 10 P.2d 613; Evans v. Davidson, 58 Idaho 600 at page 615, 77 P.2d 661; Klam v. Koppel, 63 Idaho 171 at page 184, 118 P.2d 729; Pittman v. Sather, 68 Idaho 29 at page 66, 188 P.2d 600. The four errors assigned by appellants being thus disposed of, the judgment is affirmed.