Friday, March 23, 2012

Sperau v. Ford Motor Co. case brief

Sperau v. Ford Motor Co.; (Sup. Ct. of Alabama, 1995); Supp 91; Notes 46
  • Facts: Ds had minority dealership program aimed at getting more minority dealers. P franchise owner claims falsely represented it was a good investment, claim D had intent to deceive b/c knowledge and concealment of failure rates, D has disclaimer
  • Issue: Did D fraudulently misrepresent the facts to induce P into buying w/intent to deceive?
  • Rule: Although normally opinions on forecasts and predictions wouldn’t suffice for fraud claims b/c not a misrepresentation of material fact (but an opinion), fraud exists when there is intent to deceive.
  • Commentary: what is the relationship between the two parties? Is it an arms length relationship? Or is there a heightened duty of some sort? How is Ford presenting itself in this situation? Does the fact that they are running this minority dealership program? If you’re going to provide what you claim is this supporting program, then you’re holding yourself out as someone who is going to try to help these minority dealerships survive. This is somewhat of a mentoring relationship. In this type of relationship, withholding information is not OK. Once you hold yourself out as helping a certain class, you better help, not hurt.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Iowa v. Hendricks (2013) Case Brief: Court Confirms Conviction for OWI Based on Circumstantial Evidence of Vehicle Operation

Case Brief: Iowa v. Hendricks, 845 N.W.2d 450 (Iowa App. 2013) Court: Iowa Court of Appeals Date: March 27, 2013 Facts: In Iowa v. Hendri...