BROWN
v.
COWARD ET AL.
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.
Brown sought to rescind an option agreement to purchase an orange grove, claiming the sellers made false representations about the property. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny rescission, holding that Brown failed to prove misrepresentation and had a duty to investigate facts that were available to him.
The court affirmed the denial of rescission, holding that Brown failed to prove material misrepresentation by a preponderance of the evidence. Any lack of information was due to Brown's careless indifference to ordinary means of obtaining information, not to any misrepresentation or deceit by the defendants.
“if Dr. Brown was not fully informed as to all pertinent matters relative to his purchase of the grove, this lack of information was not due to any misrepresentation or deceit, intentional or otherwise, of the Cowards, but was due to a 'careless indifference to the ordinary and acceptable means of obtaining information.'”
The trial court's principal finding that Brown failed to prove misrepresentation and that any lack of information resulted from his own indifference rather than the defendants' conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown paid $10,000 for an option to purchase an orange grove in Polk County, with the payment to be credited toward the purchase price. Brown claimed …
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 Reliance On Representations cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
This case was a suit to rescind an option agreement to purchase an orange grove in Polk County. Ten Thousand Dollars had been paid for the option which was to be credited on the purchase price. The plaintiff in the court below, appellant here, claims that the defendants, appellees here, through their agent and also directly misrepresent facts peculiarly known to them with reference to the orange grove, and that appellant relied upon such representations and that they were false. Appellees denied all material allegations with reference to misrepresentation of facts and the withholding of facts, and further alleged that the appellants had ample opportunity to investigate for himself and did in fact have a man of his own choosing to check the grove, the trees and facts in connection therewith before he signed the option.
As disclosed by the record, the case was determined upon questions of fact. In the final decree, the Chancellor stated:
“The Court has personally heard all testimony in the case, has studied the same carefully and has heard and considered arguments of counsel for the respective parties. Many of the witnesses were interested in the outcome of the case; other witnesses showed bias in their testimony and there was, of course, other testimony of persons free from interest, bias or prejudice.”
The final decree then went into great detail with reference to these'questions of fact and then said:
“Thereupon the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove the material allegations of his complaint by a preponderance of the evidence as a whole; and further, that if Dr. Brown was not fully informed as to^ all pertinent matters relative to his purchase of the grove, this lack of information was not due to any misrepresentation or deceit, intentional or otherwise, of the Cowards, but was due to a ‘careless indifference to the ordinary and acceptable means of obtaining information.’ (Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317, 90 So. 176).”
The Chancellor then cited the case of Greenberg v. Berger, Fla., 46 So. 2d 609, to the effect that where information as to rental was available at an OPA office, the purchaser was not entitled to rely on the vendor’s representations and had the legal duty to ascertain facts himself.
The case of Davis v. Dunn, Fla., 58 So. 2d 539, was cited by the Chancellor to the effect that where a purchaser was not denied the right to make an inspection of the property and elected not to do so, rescission of the contract would be denied.
Affirmed upon the authority of Broadway Builders, Inc., v. W. W. Arnold Construction Co., Fla., 59 So. 2d 26; Laramore v. Laramore, Fla., 49 So. 2d 517; and Smith v. Biscayne Park Estates, Fla., 42 So. 2d 442.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON, and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tonkovich v. S. Fla. Citrus Indus., Inc., 185 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…the trial judge or chancellor had found that, on the basis of the evidence presented, there was no proof of the alleged fraud. Welbourn v. Cohen, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 380; Barrett v. Quesnel, Fla. 1956, 90 So. 2d 706; Brown v. Coward, Fla. 1953, 69 So. 2d 174; Regnvall v. Sayle, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 147; and Camardella v. Courtright, 1936, 126 Fla. 536, 171 So. 225. We have also examined the case of Hall v. Duvall, 1945, 156 Fla. 542, 24 So. 2d 106, a decision based on the pleadings, but find the factual…
-
Frese v. Hayes, 240 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1957)…ent to rescission are Hirschman v. Hodges, O’Hara & Russell Co., 59 Fla. 517, 51 So. 550; Stokes v. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795, 128 So. 408; Byrd v. Smith, 114 Fla. 24, 152 So. 851; Johnson v. Green, Fla., 54 So. 2d 44; and Brown v. Coward, Fla., 69 So. 2d 174. The doctrine of these cases was urged upon the Florida Court in Robson Link [*282] & Co. v. Leedy Wheeler & Co., supra, and was held inapplicable for the reason, as the Court stated it, “These cases involved real estate transactions * * * and are…
Authorities Cited
- Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317 (Fla. 1921)
- Davis v. Dunn, 58 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1952)
- Greenberg v. Berger, 46 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1950)
- Smith v. Biscayne Park Ests., 42 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1949)
- Laramore v. Laramore, 49 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1950)