Legal Opinion · Dissent

Evenson v. Quantum Industries, Inc.

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 17, 2004No. 20040033Published

1DissentKapsner, Justice

[¶ 21] I respectfully dissent. Summary judgment was improperly granted on Ev-enson’s claim for fraud in the inducement. I would. reverse and remand for further proceedings relating to the claim of fraud.

[¶ 22] Evenson sued for fraud alleging he was induced to enter into a contract as a result of representations made by James Page and Quantum that “they would agree not to sell the Maximan product line or the related rights to manufacture, sell and/or market the Maximan to any third party.”

[¶ 23] Fraud is defined in N.D.C.C. § 9-03-08:

Actual fraud within the meaning of this title consists in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Schue v. JacobyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
  2. First State Bank v. Moen EnterprisesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
  3. First Union National Bank v. RPB 2, LLCNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Krank v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. AndersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API