Burgess v. Goord

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that automobile purchaser was entitled to rescind upon defendant’s misrepresentation that automobile was “new” when in fact it was not
• stating that “[i]n such an action [rescission], unlike a cause of action in damages on the same ground, proof of ... pecuniary loss is not needed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).