Hirschman v. Hodges, O'Hara & Russell Co.

Citations

• 59 Fla. 517

Syllabus

<p>1. A misrepresentation by a vendor to be a ground for a rescission of a contract, must be in reference to some material thing unknown to the vendee, either from not having examined, or from want of opportunity to be informed, or from entire confidence reposed in the vendor, and his remedy must be pursued, in good time, after the injury is discovered. It is well established in equity that nothing but what is plainly injurious to good faith ought to be considered as a fraud sufficient to impeach a contract. The mere fact that an agreement is improvident is no ground for setting it aside; it can only be avoided because of surprise, or mistake, want of freedom, undue influence, the suggestion of falsehood, or the suppression of truth.</p> <p>2. If after a representation of fact, however positive, the party to whom it was made institutes an injury for himself, has recourse to the proper means of obtaining information, and actually learns the real facts, he cannot claim to have relied upon the misrepresentation, and to have been misled by it. The same result must plainly follow, when after the representation the party receiving it has given to him a sufficient opportunity of examining into the real facts when his attention is directed to the sources of information, and he commences or professes to commence an investigation. The plainest motives of expediency and justice require that he should be charged with all the knowledge which he might have obtained had he pursued the injury to the end with diligence and completeness. He cannot claim that he did not learn the truth and was misled.</p>