LAIDLAW ET AL.
v.
ORGAN
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.
In this sale of goods dispute, the Supreme Court held that a buyer is not legally obligated to disclose to the seller information about extrinsic circumstances that might affect the price of the commodity, even when the buyer has exclusive knowledge of such information. However, the Court reversed the lower court's judgment because the jury should have been permitted to determine whether the buyer engaged in any fraudulent conduct or imposition on the seller, rather than having the judge instruct the jury as an absolute matter.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court.
The question in this case is, whether the intelligence df.éxtrinsic circumstances, which might influence the price of the commodity, and which was exclusively within the knowledge of the vendee, ought to haye been,,communicated by him,to the vendor? 'j’he court is of opinion that he Was not bound to communicate it. It Would be difficult to circumscribe the contrary doctrine within proper limits, where tho means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties. But at the same time, each party must take care not to say or do any thing tending to impose upon the other. The court thinks that the absolute instruction of the judge was erroneous, and that the question, whether any imposition was practised by* the vendee ¡upon the Vendor ought to have béen submitted to the jury. For thesareasohs the judgment must be reversed, and the cause'remanded to the district court of Louisiana, with directions to award a venire facids de novo,
Venire-de novo awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
W. P. Stackpole et. al. v. Hancock, 40 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1898)
-
Stewart v. Wyo. Cattle Ranche Co., 128 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1888)…ccomplished, it-is-unimportant whether the means of' accomplishing it are words or acts of the defendant, or his concealment or suppression of material facts not equally within -the knowledge or reach of the plaintiff. The case of Laidlaw v. Organ, 2 Wheat. 178, is much in point. In an action bythe buyer of tobacco against the sellers to recover possession of it, there was evidence that before the sale the buyer, upon being asked by Girault, one of the sellers, whether there was any news which was calculat…
-
Teamsters Local 282 Pension Tr. Fund v. Angelos, 762 F.2d 522 (7th Cir. 1985)…Dial, 757 F. 2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985). The law of trade secrets is based on this proposition, and there are many other instances in which information must be got at by investigation or not at all. E.g., Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 178, 4 L.Ed. 214 (1817); Kitch, The Law and Economics of Rights in Valuable Information, 9 J. Legal Studies 683 (1980); Kronman, Mistake, Disclosure, Information, and the Law of Contracts, 7 J. Legal Studies 1 (1978). The first question for the legal system is whe…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence