M. Zineman & Bro. v. Harris

Citations

• 6 Pa. Super. 303
• 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 151

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Rescission for fraud — Evidence—Province of the court.</p> <p>The trial judge is justified in excluding from the jury the question of alleged fraud when the testimony of the witness called to corroborate the defendant was vague and uncertain and where all the testimony taken together failed to answer the test of being clear, precise and indubitable.</p> <p>Contract — Rescission for fraud — Requisite proof.</p> <p>In order to rescind a contract on the ground of fraudulent representations by the seller, it must be established by clear and decisive proof that the alleged representation was made in regard to a material fact; that it was false; that the maker knew that it was not true; that ho made it in order to have it acted on by the other party to his damage and in ignorance of its falsity and with a reasonable belief that it was true.</p> <p>Province of court and jury — Question of reasonable time.</p> <p>The question of what is reasonable time or undue delay, when the facts are undisputed, is a question of law to be determined by the court.</p>