TARAN DISTRIBUTING, INC.
v.
ALLEN
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 court reviewed an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint seeking to cancel a contract based on fraud. The court found the allegations of fraud insufficient because the buyer had possession of the goods before signing the contract, made a payment, and was significantly in default before filing the complaint.
No, the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were insufficient to support the bill of complaint for rescission and cancellation.
“Although the bill of complaint contains allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, such allegations are insufficient as a basis for rescission and cancellation without further allegations on the part of respondent in view of the fact that he had the machines in his possession several days prior to the execution of the contract, made one monthly payment on December 10, 1952 while still having the machines in his possession, and was six months in default before he brought his bill for rescission and cancellation.”
This quote explains why the court found the fraud allegations insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe respondent purchased coin-operated phonographs, taking possession before signing a retain title contract. The respondent made one payment and was …
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 Retain Title Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order denying motion to dismiss a bill of complaint. The relief sought was a cancellation of a retain title contract involving some coin-operated phonographs, on the ground of fraud, and representations and promises not contained in the written contract.
It appears that the total purchase price of the machines was $1798.75. On October 28, 1952, $800 was paid on account on the purchase price and an additional $200 on October 29, 1952. The machines were delivered to the respondent on November 4, 1952. The actual retain title contract was executed on November 13, 1952. It, therefore, appears that respondent had the machines in his possession where he could inspect them and do with them as he pleased from November 4, 1952, until November 13, 1952, at which time respondent executed the retain title contract. It also appears from the bill of complaint that the first monthly payment due under the retain title contract on December 10, 1952 was paid by the respondent. The bill of complaint for rescission and cancellation was not filed until June 3, 1953, at which time the respondent was six months in default in his payments on the retain title contract.
Although the bill of complaint contains allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, such allegations are insufficient as a basis for rescission and cancellation without further allegations on the part of respondent in view of the fact that he had the machines in his possession several days prior to the execution of the contract, made one monthly payment on December 10, 1952 while still having the machines in his possession, and was six months in default before he brought his bill for rescission and cancellation.
Certiorari is granted, and it is ordered that the order denying the motion to dismiss the bill of complaint be and the same is hereby quashed, and an order be entered dismissing the bill of complaint, with leave to amend, within such time as may be fixed by the Chancellor. ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benn v. KEY W. Propane GAS Corp., 72 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1954)…since that time and we see no occasion to cite more than two recent cases of this Court along the same lines, viz.: the case of Street v. Bartow Growers, Processing Corp., Fla. 1953, 67 So. 2d 228, and Taran Distributing, Inc., v.. Allen, Fla. 1953, 67 So. 2d 686. In Street v. Bartow Growers [67 So. 2d 231], which primarily involved certain misrepresentations as to the financial conditions of a corporation, we said: “Even if there were misrepresentations . contained in the financial statement, the appellees…
-
Crystal View Sliding Door Mfg. Co., Inc. v. ALL Doors, Inc., 114 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…r being in possession of the physical assets of the businesses and, having operated them for some six months prior to bringing action would certainly warrant the application of the doctrine of laches. See Taran Distributing, Inc. v. Allen, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 686, and Benn v. Key West Propane Gas Co., Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 910. Concluding as we have that the appellants failed to demonstrate error in the actions of the chancellor in rendering the final decree appealed, we consider the questions directed to his…