212 So.2d 906 (1968)
Appellant dance student enrolled in 14 dance courses at appellee dance studio for a total cash outlay of over $ 31,000 dollars. Appellant brought suit against appellees, the corporation, the studio, and an instructor who sold her the courses, alleging appellees were guilty of undue influence and misrepresentation in inducing her to sign the contracts. The trial court dismissed appellant's fourth amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and appellant sought review.
- The court disagreed with the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
- The court held that appellees' statements to appellant that she was an excellent student and a beautiful dancer were actionable because the parties were not dealing with each other at arm's length.
- The court noted that appellant did not have an equal opportunity to become apprised of the truth or falsity of appellees' statements to her.
- The court held that appellant's complaint set forth a cause of action for undue influence and misrepresentation as grounds for avoiding the contracts and therefore appellant was entitled to her day in court.
- The court reversed the dismissal of the complaint.
The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of appellant dance student's fourth amended complaint because it held that the complaint set forth a cause of action for undue influence and misrepresentation as grounds for avoiding the contracts and that appellant was entitled to her day in court.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.