GREENBERG
v.
BERGER
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a rescission claim. The court held that a buyer's reliance on a seller's alleged misrepresentations about rental income was unreasonable, as the buyer had a duty to investigate the true rental amounts.
The court held that the amended bill of complaint did not contain equity. The appellant's reliance on the appellees' statements about rental income was not justifiable because the law imposed a duty on the appellant to investigate the facts himself, rather than solely relying on the seller's representations.
“It was the Chancellor's view that the law made it the duty of the plaintiff-appellant to ascertain the facts about the amount of the rentals of the apartments and not depend or rely on the statements or representations of the defendants-appellees.”
This quote explains the lower court's reasoning for dismissing the case, which the appellate court agreed with.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff-appellant purchased an apartment building from the defendants-appellees, assuming existing mortgages. The appellant later filed a bill i…
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
CHAPMAN, Justice.
The question presented by this appeal is whether or not the amended bill of complaint contained equity.
It alleged that the parties, on April 28, 1948, entered into a written agreement for the purchase and sale of described property.
The plaintiff-appellant purchased from the defendants-appellees an apartment building valued at $120,000.00, subject to three mortgages.
The appellant paid thereon cash and property at an agreed value of $30,000.00 and assumed payment of the three mortgages on the apartment.
The trade was closed, according to the written agreement between the parties, and appellant went into possession of the property purchased.
It appears that the trade was closed by the parties on May 26, 1948. A bill in equity praying for a rescission of the agreement was filed in the Court below under date of November 24, 1948.
The bill of complaint was amended some two or three times prior to the order of dismissal.
The gravamen of the amended bill is that the appellees, in the course of negotiations leading up to the execution and delivery of the written agreement, misrepresented a material fact for the purpose of inducing the appellant to act and to his injury, the misrepresentation, as alleged, consisting of a false and untrue statement as to the amount of the monthly rentals of the several apartments which were under OPA control.
The apartment numbers, the actual OPA maximum rental and the yearly rental represented by the defendants-appellees are set forth in the amended bill of complaint.
It is conceded that OPA rentals were lifted in the Miami Beach area on February 16, 1949, some three or four months after the bill of complaint for rescission was filed in the lower court.
Information was available upon request at the OPA office as to the exact amount of rentals the apartments were approved for. The reason given or assigned by the appellant for not making investigation at the OPA office was that he relied upon the statement as to the amount of the rentals as given by the defendants-appellees.
It was the Chancellor's view that the law made it the duty of the plaintiff-appellant to ascertain the facts about the amount of the rentals of the apartments and not depend or rely on the statements or representations of the defendants-appellees.
It is true that the law recognizes the right of a trader or dealer "to cry his own wares", but these statements are but mere expressions of opinion and the purchaser is not relieved of the duty and responsibility of an honest and thorough investigation as to the truth of the statements of the trader or dealer. See Hancoy Holding Co. v. Lambright, 101 Fla. 128, 133 So. 631; Glass v. Craig, 83 Fla. 408, 91 So. 332; Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317, 90 So. 173, and similar cases.
What we have said here is not in conflict with out holding in Regnvall v. Sayle, Fla., 45 So. 2d 674, because the factual basis of the cases are entirely dissimilar. Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Wasser v. Sasoni, 652 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…seller’s “puffing” or statements of opinion do not relieve a buyer of the duty to investigate the truth of those statements and do not constitute fraudulent misrepresentations. See Lambert v. Sistrunk, 58 So. 2d 434 (Fla.1952); Greenberg v. Berger, 46 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1950); Glass v. Craig, 83 Fla. 408, 91 So. 332 (1922); Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317, 90 So. 173 (1921); Keating v. DeArment, 193 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert, denied, 201 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1967). Moreover, several courts, including this court,…
-
Davis v. Dunn, 58 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1952)…he premises being free of termites, when as a matter of fact the premises were heavily infested, as a matter of law, entitled the plaintiffs-appellants to a rescission and cancellation of the contract of sale. The case of Greenberg v. Berger, Fla., 46 So. 2d 609, 610, involved a bill of complaint praying for a rescission of a contract of sale. The gravamen of the amended bill of complaint was to the effect that appellee, in the course of negotiations leading up to the execution and delivery of the written a…
-
Johnson v. Green, 54 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1951)…Co. v. State Sav. Bank, 59 Fla. 455, 51 So. 543; Mickler v. Reddick, 38 Fla. 341, 21 So. 286; Leathers Development Co. v. Orange Inv. Co., supra, [97 Fla. 278, 120 So. 329]; Maull v. Lindsley, 79 Fla. 361, 84 So. 92." See Greenberg v. Berger, Fla., 46 So. 2d 609. The record discloses that Guy N. Johnson died shortly after the institution of the suit in the lower Court. Mrs. Nina D. Johnson testified that the defendants had been in the open, exclusive and undisputed possession of the strip on the south side…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Glass v. Craig, 83 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1922)
- Hancoy Holding Co. v. Lambright, 101 Fla. 128 (Fla. 1931)
- Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317 (Fla. 1921)
- Greenberg v. Berger, 46 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1950)