23-25 Building Partnership v. Testa Produce, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[R]eviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented,” as the “appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may - 20 - No. 1-23-1711 dump the burden of argument and research.”
• rescission of fraudulently induced contract requires proving a false statement of material fact, known or believed to be false by the party making it
• “A contract induced by fraud … is voidable at the election of the party claiming to have been defrauded.”
• “A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented,” as the “appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research.”
• “If a document is signed by the party being charged, the other party’s signature is not necessary if the document is delivered to that party and it indicates acceptance through performance.” (citing Meyer v. Marilyn Miglin, Inc., 273 Ill. App. 3d 882, 891 (1995)
• contracts induced by fraud are voidable via recission

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).