Rattan v. Bosley

3 Citing cases

  1. Patek v. Alfaro (In re Primera Energy, LLC)

    579 B.R. 75 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2017)   Cited 13 times

    Id. (citations omitted).See Rattan v. Bosley , 446 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1969, no writ) (finding that when one has been induced to enter into a contract by fraudulent representations, the person committing the fraud cannot defeat a claim for fraud by asserting that the defrauded party might have discovered the fraud by exercise of proper care). The evidence in this case establishes that none of the testifying Plaintiffs would have invested had they known that their investment was being used to pay management fees in excess of what was stated in the Contract; that Primera sales persons and Alfaro were receiving commission based fees; that Alfaro was taking company draws while vendors were not being paid; and that their investments were not solely allocated to the well of their investment.

  2. Southwest Banks&sTrust Co. v. Engineering Associates, Inc.

    549 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)

    Where one has been induced to enter into a contract by fraudulent representations, the person committing the fraud cannot defeat a claim for damages based thereon by asserting that the party defrauded might have discovered the truth by the exercise of proper care. Isenhower v. Bell, 365 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Tex.Sup.1963); Rattan v. Bosley, 446 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1969, no writ). Appellants' remaining complaint was not preserved for appellate review.

  3. Robert v. Sumerour

    543 S.W.2d 890 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 2 times

    And when one has been induced to enter into a contract by fraudulent representations, the person committing the fraud cannot defeat a claim for damages based thereon by asserting the party defrauded might have discovered the truth by the exercise of proper care. Labbe v. Corbett, S.Ct., 69 Tex. 503, 6 S.W. 808; Moore v. Beakley, S.Ct., Tex.Civ.App., 215 S.W. 957; Schonrock v. Taylor, CCA, Tex.Civ.App.Er.Ref., 212 S.W.2d 260; Smith v. Bifano, CCA, Tex.Civ.App.Waco, NRE, 330 S.W.2d 473; Rattan v. Bosley, CCA, Tex.Civ.App.Waco, NWH, 446 S.W.2d 345. Contention 5) complains a new trial should have been granted because of prejudicial testimony elicited from plaintiffs' witness.