Dieterich v. Rice

Citations

• 115 Wash. 365
• 197 P. 1
• 1921 Wash. LEXIS 718

Syllabus

<p>Vendor and Purchaser (60, 72)-—Rescission by Purchaser-— Fraud—Pleading—Sufficiency of Complaint. In an action to rescind a contract for the purchase of farm land, the complaint was sufficient, as against general demurrer, where it alleged that defendant induced the purchase by fraudulently representing that the land was free .from destructive frosts, and was tillable fertile soil of extra good crop-producing quality, producing certain high average crops of grain, hay and fruit per acre, and that plaintiffs were strangers in the vicinity of the land, which they had visited but once prior to the contract, and that defendant took plaintiffs upon a small portion of the land, when he pointed out and showed plaintiffs land and property other than that described in the contract as constituting part of the land included in the intended sale.</p> <p>Same (58, 59)—Rescission by Purchaser—-Right to Rescind—• Defenses—Provision as to Oral Representations. A clause in a written contract for the sale of land providing that the vendee is purchasing the same upon careful inspection and that there has been no other inducement other than those recited and that no changes or verbal agreements now or hereafter will be binding on either party unless reduced to writing and signed, would not estop plaintiffs from setting up false and fraudulent representations inducing their entering into the contract, where the action for rescission is based upon actual fraud in procuring the execution of the instrument.</p> <p>Evidencf. (167)-—Parol to Contradict Writing—Fraud—Effect of Contract to Exclude Oral Evidence. Parol evidence of false and fraudulent representations inducing one to enter into a written contract is admissible notwithstanding an express recital that all oral representations shall be inoperative.</p>