Hartwig v. Bitter

I

Were the representations of the defendant merely opinions in regard to future events and, hence, not actionable?

The trial judge correctly stated the general rule that, in actions for deceit, the fraudulent misrepresentations must relate to present or pre-existing events or facts and cannot be merely unfulfilled promises or statements of future events.

The exception to that general rule was foreshadowed in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Edward Fairchild in Beers v. Atlas Assurance Co. The exception to the rule was adopted by this court in Alropa Corp. v. Flatley. It is that exception to…