Legal Opinion · Dissent
Osborn v. Will
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 10, 1931No. 28,294Published
1DissentHolt, J.
No exception can be taken to the general principles of law stated in the majority opinion. But I think plaintiffs’ evidence brings this case under the rule stated in the last two sentences of the following quotation from Elphick v. Hoffman, 49 Conn. 331, 332:
“If the alleged false representations did not induce the respondent to make the purchase, then it is a case of fraud without damage. If he refused to accept the representation unless put in the form of a guarantee, his only redress is on the contract. He is not at liberty to lay that aside and resort to fraud. But even if we may suppose…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Neelund v. HansenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Elphick v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1881