Notice in the order that all representations made during negotiations are contained therein is binding on the buyer. ( International Harvester Co. of America v. Leifer, 42 Wyo. 283, 293 P. 381; Pacific States Automotive Finance Corp. v. Addison, 45 Idaho 270, 261 P. 683; Mechem on Sales, p. 1114, sec. 1288.) W.A. Ricks, for Respondents.
Trade acceptances in the form of those in suit in this action are negotiable instruments. (C. S., sec. 5868; Stafford v. Hill, 53 Cal.App. 337, 200 P. 33; United Railway Logging Co. v. Siberian Commercial Co., 117 Wn. 347, 19 A.L.R. 506, 201 P. 21; Pacific States Automotive Finance Corp. v. Addison, 45 Idaho 270, 261 P. 683.) Appellant is presumed to be a holder in due course.
This was clearly a transaction in interstate commerce and the statute does not apply to such transactions. (13 C. J., p. 581, note 62; 1921 Sess. Laws, chap. 212, p. 424; Pacific State Automotive Finance Corp. v. Addison, 45 Idaho 270, 261 P. 683; Portland C. L. Co. v. Hansen L. F. Co., 43 Idaho 343, 251 Pac. 1051.) To constitute remedial fraud, the misrepresentations must be made scienter, that is, either with knowledge of their falsity or in culpable ignorance of their truth.
( Sullivan v. Roche, 257 Mass. 166; 153 N.E. 549; Colonial Development Corp. v. Bragdon, 219 Mass. 170; 106 N.E. 633; Cannon v. Burrell, 193 Mass. 534; 79 N.E. 780; Boss v. Greater Boston Mortgage Corp., 251 Mass. 455; 146 N.E. 686; O'Meara v. Smyth, 243 Mass. 188; 137 N.E. 294; Barnebey v. Collier, Inc., 65 F. [2d] 864; Lasher Co. v. LaBerge, 125 Me. 475; 135 A. 31; Bybee v. Embree-McLane Carriage Co., [Tex. Civ. Rep.] 135 S.W. 203; National Guarantee Loan Co. v. Thomas, 28 Tex. Civ. Rep. 379; 67 S.W. 454; Equitable Mfg. Co. v. Biggers, 121 Ga. 381; 49 S.E. 271; Schuster v. North American Hotel Co., 106 Neb. 672; 186 N.W. 87; Baylies v. Vanden Boom, 40 Wyo. 411; 278 P. 551; Case Threshing Mch. Co. v. Broach, 137 Ga. 602; 73 S.E. 1063; Morgan v. Denton, 28 Ga. App. 88; 110 S.E. 328; Edison Fixture Co. v. Copoulos, 3 N.J. Misc 174; 127 A. 551; Pacific States Automotive Finance Corp. v. Addison, 45 Ida. 270; 261 P. 683; Locomobile Co. of America v. Belasco, 32 Cal.App. 329; 162 P. 920; Steiner Mfg. Co. v. Kochaniewicz, 3 N.J. Misc. 437; 128 A. 608; Blackstad Mercantile Co. v. Porter Co., [Tex. Civ. Rep.] 158 S.W. 216.) The rule laid down in the above-cited authorities, however, has been repudiated in New York State.
As a general rule, fraud cannot be based upon statements promissory in nature that relate to future actions or upon the mere failure to perform a promise or an agreement to do something in the future. Pacific States Auto. Fin. Corp. v. Addison, 45 Idaho 270, 261 P. 683 (1927). The allegedly false representation must concern past or existing material facts.
The fraud claim was based upon Ellis's breach of his promise to repurchase the lot if the Gillespies decided not to build on it. As a general rule, fraud cannot be based upon statements promissory in nature that relate to future actions or upon the mere failure to perform a promise or an agreement to do something in the future. Pacific States Auto. Fin. Corp. v. Addison, 45 Idaho 270, 261 P. 683 (1927). The allegedly false representation must concern past or existing material facts.
Fraud cannot be predicated upon promissory statements, for failure to perform a promise or fulfill an agreement to do something at a future time. 23 Am.Jur., pp. 781, 799-802; 55 Am.Jur., pp. 570, 571; 51 A.L.R. 49; 37 C.J.S., Fraud, § 11, pp. 231-34; Kemmerer v. Pollard, 15 Idaho 34, 96 P. 206; Pacific States A.F. Corp. v. Addison, 45 Idaho 270, 276, 261 P. 683; Oxnard Theatres v. Paramount Pictures, D.C., 24 F. Supp. 44; Maynes v. Angeles Mesa Land Co., 10 Cal.2d 587, 76 P.2d 109; Shields v. N.Y. Oil Burner Co., 262 App. Div. 854, 28 N.Y.S.2d 104; Wright v. Peabody Coal Co., 290 Ill.App. 110, 8 N.E.2d 68; Fidurski v. Hammill, 328 Pa. 1, 195 A. 3; Fanger v. Leeder, 327 Mass. 501, 99 N.E.2d 533. The plaintiff must plead the particular representations that were made and that they were false and fraudulent and material, and that the party injured believed and relied on such statements.
Where the contract stipulates, as in the instant case, "that no written alterations or verbal agreements supplementing this contract shall be recognized," or words to that effect, any statements or agreements made by the agent are not binding upon the principal. (2. C.J. 857, Pacific States Automotive Finance Corp. v. Addison, 261 P. 683, Ida; Bruner v. Kansas Moline Plow Co., 104 S.W. 816; Central Bank of Bingham v. Perkins, 251 P. 627, Ida; Bronson v. Weber, 116 S.W. 20.) Oral agreements not be performed within one year are void. (Sec. 16-505, I.C.A.)
(Citing cases.) ( Pacific States A. F. Corp. v. Addison, 45 Idaho 270, 279, 261 P. 683; Chesney v. Bodily, 50 Idaho 597, 601, 298 P. 937.) As between the purchaser for value of negotiable paper and the maker or acceptor who puts it in circulation, the loss, if any arises, should fall upon one who places it in circulation.
BUDGE, J. By petition for rehearing, appellant for the first time calls attention to a fourth case decided by this court involving a contract containing provisions similar to those involved here: Pacific States A. F. Corp. v. Addison, 45 Idaho 270, 261 Pac. 683. Appellant insists that the rule announced in that case is contrary to the rule announced in the instant case and is controlling. However, there is a clear distinction between the two cases.