Legal Opinion

Adams v. Adams

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 2004No. S-10271PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

The power to avoid a contract due to misrepresentation can be lost if a party knowing or having reason to know of the misrepresentation affirms the contract. But this rule only applies in cases of non-fraudulent misrepresentations. Where there is fraud the power of avoidance is only lost if the party actually knows of the misrepresentation and affirms the contract. The main question in this case is whether, in the process of negotiating a lease, changing a right of first refusal to an option to purchase without notice should be considered a constructive fraud for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
  2. Estate of ArbuckleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Dingeman v. DingemanAlaska Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Knight v. DaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
  5. Rockstad v. Global Finance & Investment Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Mullins v. OatesAlaska Supreme Court · 2008
  2. In Re the Adoption of S.K.L.H.Alaska Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Seybert v. Cominco Alaska ExplorationAlaska Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Wasser & Winters Co. v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America), Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Askinuk Corp. v. Lower Yukon School DistrictAlaska Supreme Court · 2009

8 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