Vokes v. Murray: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=District Court of Appeal of Florida |citation=212 So. 2d 906 (1968) |date=1968 |subject=Contracts |appealed_from= |case_treatment=No |overturned= |...") |
m (DeRien moved page Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc. to Vokes v. Murray: shorten) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court=District | |court=Florida District Courts of Appeal | ||
|citation=212 So. 2d 906 | |citation=212 So. 2d 906 | ||
|date=1968 | |date=July 31, 1968 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
| | |facts=*Arthur Murray, Inc. = "Murray" = defendant = a company with franchises that specialized in teaching dancing | ||
*Ms. Vokes = "Vokes" = plaintiff = A lonely 51-year-old widow bought more dancing lessons that she could completed in a lifetime. She had been really taken by the effusive praise of her dance teachers. | |||
*Vokes was swindled out of money by a dance studio promising her that she was an extraordinary dancer. | |||
*Vokes eventually came to her senses. | |||
|procedural_history=*Vokes sued Murray in a Florida state court. | |||
*Vokes claimed the dance studio had made false representations. | |||
*Vokes sought rescission of the contract & a refund. | |||
*Murray answered that its business had only engaged in [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/trade-or-sales-puffing trade puffing]. | |||
*Judgment for the dance studio. | |||
|issues=If a party has superior knowledge of a matter, can that party's statement of opinion be taken as a statement of fact sufficient to find a mis-representation? | |||
--- | |||
|procedural_history=Judgment for the dance studio. | |||
|issues=Whether the opinions of the dance company could be seen as misrepresentations which the widow relied upon to her detriment. | Whether the opinions of the dance company could be seen as misrepresentations which the widow relied upon to her detriment. | ||
|holding=Judgment for the widow. | |holding=Judgment for the widow. | ||
|judgment= | |||
Yes. A statement by a party with superior knowledge may be regarded as a statement of fact sufficient to find mis-representation. | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |||
|rule=A statement of a party having superior knowledge may be regarded as a statement of fact although it would be considered as opinion if the parties were dealing on equal terms. | |rule=A statement of a party having superior knowledge may be regarded as a statement of fact although it would be considered as opinion if the parties were dealing on equal terms. | ||
| | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
| | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/vokes-v-arthur-murray-inc | ||
| | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/vokes-v-arthur-murray-inc | |||
|case_text_source=CaseText | |||
}} | |||
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video | |||
|service=YouTube | |||
|id=fpqxKYoLEEE | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video | |||
|service=YouTube | |||
|id=tp37LU-Xhow | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video | |||
|service=YouTube | |||
|id=PxUuoKqwAoc | |||
}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:47, January 22, 2024
| Vokes v. Murray | |
| Court | Florida District Courts of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Citation | 212 So. 2d 906 |
| Date decided | July 31, 1968 |
Facts
- Arthur Murray, Inc. = "Murray" = defendant = a company with franchises that specialized in teaching dancing
- Ms. Vokes = "Vokes" = plaintiff = A lonely 51-year-old widow bought more dancing lessons that she could completed in a lifetime. She had been really taken by the effusive praise of her dance teachers.
- Vokes was swindled out of money by a dance studio promising her that she was an extraordinary dancer.
- Vokes eventually came to her senses.
Procedural History
- Vokes sued Murray in a Florida state court.
- Vokes claimed the dance studio had made false representations.
- Vokes sought rescission of the contract & a refund.
- Murray answered that its business had only engaged in trade puffing.
- Judgment for the dance studio.
Issues
If a party has superior knowledge of a matter, can that party's statement of opinion be taken as a statement of fact sufficient to find a mis-representation?
---
Whether the opinions of the dance company could be seen as misrepresentations which the widow relied upon to her detriment.Holding
Judgment for the widow.
Yes. A statement by a party with superior knowledge may be regarded as a statement of fact sufficient to find mis-representation.Judgment
Reversed
Rule
A statement of a party having superior knowledge may be regarded as a statement of fact although it would be considered as opinion if the parties were dealing on equal terms.
Resources
