Legal Opinion · Dissent

Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 5, 1959Published

1Dissent

Fuld, J. (dissenting).

If a party has actually induced another to enter into a contract by means of fraud—and so the complaint before us alleges—I conceive that language may not be devised to shield him from the consequences of such fraud. The law does not temporize with trickery or duplicity, and this court, after having weighed the advantages of certainty in contractual relations against the harm and injustice which result from fraud, long ago unequivocally declared that “ a party who has perpetrated a fraud upon his neighbor may [not] * * * contract with him in the very instrument by means…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Dallas Farm MacHinery Company v. ReavesTexas Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Bates v. SouthgateMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  3. Bridger v. . GoldsmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  4. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Jackson v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924

14 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