BISCAYNE INV. GROUP v. Guarantee Management

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding economic loss rule did not bar claims by a developer alleging economic losses due to actions of management company hired by homeowners' association because parties were not in privity and defective product was not at issue
• “[A] mere promise not performed, ... by itself, cannot form the predicate for actionable fraud”
• “it is not sufficient to show only that one of the contracting parties unilaterally intended some benefit to the third party.” (citation omitted)
• “On appeal, this court must determine de novo whether the complaint alleges sufficient ultimate facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.”
• “In order to state a cause of action for fraud in the inducement, a plaintiff must allege that 1
• “A non-party is the specifically intended beneficiary only if the contract clearly expresses an intent to primarily and directly benefit the third party or a class of persons to which that party belongs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).