Reperex Inc. v. Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw

6 Citing cases

  1. Reperex, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Commercial

    2018 UT 51 (Utah 2018)   Cited 6 times
    Upholding the enforceability of a non-reliance clause when it did not insulate a party to the contract from its own fraud

    It first identified circumstances in which a contract provision of this sort could be unenforceable on public policy grounds—as where a contract is procured by fraud in the inducement, or purports to insulate "a person against his own fraud." Reperex Inc. v. Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw , 2017 UT App 25, ¶ 22, 392 P.3d 905 (citing Miller v. Celebration Mining Co. , 2001 UT 64, ¶ 10, 29 P.3d 1231 ; Lamb v. Bangart , 525 P.2d 602, 608 (Utah 1974) ). And it held that Reperex had asserted claims for relief that "could reasonably support a finding" in its favor on these grounds.

  2. Hayes v. Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Servs.

    2021 UT 62 (Utah 2021)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Applying doctrine to contract for engineering services

    Beyond that, "we are not at liberty to graft onto the statute an exception that our legislature chose not to include." Reperex Inc. v. Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw, 2017 UT App 25, ¶ 71, 392 P.3d 905, reversed in part on other grounds by Reperex, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Com., 2018 UT 51, 428 P.3d 1082; see also Davencourt at Pilgrim's Landing Homeowners Ass'n v. Davencourt at Pilgrim's Landing, LC, 2009 UT 65, ¶ 44, 221 P.3d 234 ("If a statutory duty is to exist that lies outside the scope of the economic loss rule, we leave it to the decision of the legislature."). We note that even though Davencourt was issued after the enactment of the Economic Loss Statute, the events in question occurred before enactment of the Statute and we applied the common law economic loss rule.

  3. NetDictation LLC v. Rice

    2019 UT App. 198 (Utah Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Had the sale involved the transfer of any real property, it would strengthen NetDictation’s position that the above-quoted administrative rule applied to Coldwell Banker. See Reperex Inc. v. Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw , 2017 UT App 25, ¶ 40, 392 P.3d 905 ("[A]t least where ... the business being sold includes real property, the standard of care for business brokers is not lower than the standard of care for real estate brokers."). ¶37 NetDictation asserts that "[t]here is sufficient evidence that [Coldwell Banker’s agent] may have known the APSA did not reflect the true terms of the transaction," but it does not discuss any such evidence.

  4. NetDictation LLC v. Rice

    2019 UT App. 192 (Utah Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Had the sale involved the transfer of any real property, it would strengthen NetDictation's position that the above-quoted administrative rule applied to Coldwell Banker. See Reperex Inc. v. Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw, 2017 UT App 25, ¶ 40, 392 P.3d 905 ("[A]t least where . . . the business being sold includes real property, the standard of care for business brokers is not lower than the standard of care for real estate brokers."). CONCLUSION

  5. Paskenta Enters. Corp. v. Cottle

    Case No. 1:17-cv-00033-JNP-BCW (D. Utah Jan. 22, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    In Reperex Inc. v. Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw, the buyer of a business alleged that a broker either fraudulently or negligently misrepresented the financial strength of the business. 392 P.3d 905, 908 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) cert. granted sub nom. Reperex Inc. v. Coldwell Banker, 400 P.3d 1044 (Utah 2017). The buyer signed a contract with the broker in connection with the purchase of the business that contained the following provision:

  6. Bountiful City v. Baize

    2021 UT 9 (Utah 2021)   Cited 5 times

    . . . were essentially consistent with the defense of justification." Bountiful City v. Baize, 2017 UT App 25, ¶ 28, 438 P.3d 1041. This permitted the court of appeals to reject the ineffective assistance of counsel argument.