Hart v. Marbury

Citations

• 82 Fla. 317
• 90 So. 173

Syllabus

<p>1. Where a valid contract of sale of a commodity for delivery at a time in the future at an agreed price is breached by the vendor, the measure of damages is the difference in price between what the vendee agreed to pay for the commodity and the market price at the time it was to have been delivered at the place of delivery.</p> <p>2. The repudiation of a contract of sale by the” vendor and refusal to deliver the thing sold gives to the vendee a right of action for the breach of the contract.</p> <p>3. Representations made by the purchaser of a commodity to the vendor as to why the purchaser wished to buy the article, the probability'of a decline in the market' price at a later time, as to the reason why he is agreeing to pay a larger price than the market seems to justify, aré not such representations as will justify an avoidance of the contract by the vendor upon discovering that they were untrue, where the relations of the parties were not of such a character as to require the exercise on the part of the vendee toward the vendor of a greater degree of good faith and fair dealing than he would be required to exercise in trading at a'rms length.</p> <p>4. A mere statement of opinion, belief or expectation, although false or resting upon no information is not such a false representation as to constitute fraud when made or exchanged between persons trading as strangers for an article of personal property.</p> <p>5. An averment in a plea to a declaration upon a contract of sale for its breach that the price which the vendee agreed to pay for the article was lower than the market price is not good as showing the plaintiff’s misrepresentation or purpose to deceive.</p>