Harding & Dubois v. Lloyd

Citations

• 3 Pa. Super. 293
• 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 14

Syllabus

<p>False pretense — Province of court and jury — Inadequate charge.</p> <p>The essence of the crime of false pretense is the intent, but the foundation of a contract is the assent of two minds meeting upon common ground. The failure of a trial judge to distinguish in his charge between what constitutes the crime of false pretense and what false representations will avoid a contract, is such error as to require reversal.</p> <p>Contract — False representations to avoid a contract.</p> <p>The foundation of a contract is the assent of two minds meeting upon common ground. If that assent is based upon false representations made by one party to the contract and believed and relied upon by the other, there is no real foundation for the assent and the law holds the contract void.</p> <p>Contract — Misrepresentation of facts.</p> <p>Misrepresentations of a material fact, which were relied on by the plaintiff and which he had a right to rely on, and which induced his assent to the contract, constitute such a fraud as will avoid the contract. Brown v. Eccles, 2 Pa. Superior Ct., 192, followed.</p> <p>Practice, Superior Court — Assignments of error — Points.</p> <p>Where no points are submitted to the court, criticism of the charge of the court, in an assignment of error, as to what is not contained in such charge is unfair to the court, and such assignment, not having been specially allowed as an exception, will be disregarded.</p>