Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hoesch Handel Ag, Formerly Known as Hoesch Handel Gmbh v. Charles Goldfarb

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided February 20, 1976No. 75--1497Published

1DissentMcCREE, Circuit Judge

I would grant the motion for rehearing. The loss occasioned by plaintiff caused by its reliance on Goldbarb’s misrepresentation is the amount that Hoesch Handel would have recovered from United if the bond had been authorized. Since United is now in insolvency proceedings, the damages recoverable would be limited to the amount of the dividend, if any, paid by United’s receiver. See comment j, § 329, Restatement II of Agency, which is made specifically applicable to the rule stated in § 330 that imposes liability upon an agent who misrepresents his authority:

[I]f, because of the insolvency or…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hoesch Handel Ag, Formerly Known as Hoesch Handel Gmbh v. Charles GoldfarbCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API