Barrett v. McDonald Investments, Inc.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1ConcurrenceAlexander, J.
[¶ 24] I join the Court’s opinion. The Barretts’ life savings and Laurence’s signature on the agreement were procured by what are asserted to be knowingly fraudulent representations by McDonald and Sullivan regarding the nature and quality of the Manulife investment.
[¶ 25] As an alternative basis to affirm, I would hold that when a contract is asserted to have been procured as a result of a fraud perpetrated by a contracting party with a significantly superior bargaining position, a compulsory arbitration clause may be avoided, allowing the fraud claim to be heard by the court. It would be a…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.