SUNRISE FARMS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
S. A. WRIGHT, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sunrise Farms sought rescission of a purchase and sale agreement based on fraudulent inducement, but the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs waived any rescission rights by entering into modification agreements after discovering the fraud.
The court held that appellants waived any right to rescission and cancellation by entering into modification agreements after discovering the original fraud, and were therefore estopped from claiming a right to rescind. An action to rescind based on fraudulent inducement cannot be maintained where the agreement has been modified by the parties after the fraud is discovered.
[1] A party who modifies a contract after discovering the original fraud that induced it waives the right to rescind or cancel the contract based on that fraud.
[2] A party may be estopped from claiming a right to rescind a contract if they subsequently enter into modification agreements with the other party.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An action to cancel or rescind an agreement based on fraudulent inducement cannot be maintained where the agreement has been modified by the parties after the original fraud has been discovered.”
Statement of the controlling legal rule that supports affirmance and the primary basis for the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants and appellee entered into a purchase and sale agreement dated July 1, 1974. Appellants discovered fraudulent inducement by July 1974 but to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rescission Of Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
This appeal is from a summary final judgment in favor of appellee on the issues raised in the appellants’ complaint. The issues raised by appellee’s counterclaim are not involved on this appeal.
Appellants filed suit against appellee seeking the cancellation or rescission of a purchase and sale agreement dated July 1, 1974, together with all security instruments thereto and all subsequent agreements of the parties. The prayer for cancellation or rescission was based on fraudulent inducement.
The trial court properly assumed in considering the motion for summary judgment that the appellee fraudulently induced appellants to enter into the July 1,1974 agreement. The appellants discovered the original fraud in July, 1974, but made no effort to rescind the contract with appellee. Instead, in early October, 1974, when appellants were in default under the original agreement, the appellants negotiated with appellee for an extension of time on their obligations and reached a workout agree ment with the appellee. During this time, appellants were represented by counsel. Further mutually acceptable modifications were made to the parties’ agreements after October, 1974.
The trial court found that the appellants had waived any right for rescission and cancellation by entering into the modification agreements and were estopped from thereafter claiming a right to rescind and cancel the agreements. The trial court concluded that there was no basis in fact or law to support the appellants’ contention that they were forced or coerced to agree to the modification agreements.
We affirm. The holdings of the trial court in ordering summary judgment are supported by the record. An action to cancel or rescind an agreement based on fraudulent inducement cannot be maintained where the agreement has been modified by the parties after the original fraud has been discovered. See Hurner v. Mutual Bankers Corp., 140 Fla. 435, 191 So. 831 (1939) and Benn v. Key West Propane Gas Corp., 72 So. 2d 910 (Fla.1954). The record does not support appellants’ contention that the modifications were entered into by them under duress. Appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied.
MILLS, C. J., and MeCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hurner v. Mut. Bankers Corp., 140 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1939)
- Benn v. KEY W. Propane GAS Corp., 72 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1954)