General Transportation Casualty & Surety Co. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a representation of present fact which was “the inducement for the contract” and which was “collateral to” that contract, could support a claim of fraud
• holding that a representation of present fact which was “the inducement for the contract” and which was “collateral to” that contract could support a claim for fraud
• holding that a fraudulent misrepresentation \which was the inducement for the contract[ ] ... was neither duplicative\ of a contract claim, \nor barred by the general merger clause contained in the contract.\
• holding that a false promise to not resell goods outside a specific geographical area \constitute[d] a misrepresentation\ for purposes of fraud where geographical restrictions were not contained in the written agreement for the purchase of those goods
• holding that there was no duplication of damages in a claim for fraudulent inducement based on material misrepresentations that were collateral to the contract and were inducement for promisee to enter the contract
• stating that a promise made with a preconceived notion of not performing it constitutes a misrepresentation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).