· 6/21/1906

Murphy v. Hussey

Citations

117 La. 390
41 So. 692
1906 La. LEXIS 711

Syllabus

1. Landlord and Tenant — Lease — Option por Sale. The contract of lease contained an option or promise of sale of the property leased which was accepted by lessees. 2. Same — Enforcement—Defense. The lessor does not by preponderance of testimony sustain his defense which was that ■he had signed the contract not knowing that it contained a clause covering an option to sell the property. 3. Same — Pleading—Fraud. The pleadings set forth no charge of fraud or deception. 4. Same — Knowledge op Contract — Read or Have it Read. It is incumbent upon a person signing a contract to read it carefully or to have it read; to stop and listen and take no chances touching the contents of the act. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 44, Cent. Dig. Specific Performance, §§ 155-159; vol. 11, Cent. Dig. Contracts, §§ 415-419.] 5. Same — Tender—In Mora. The defendant was sufficiently placed in mora the cash portion of the price was tendered the notes representing the credit portion, which defendant refused to accept. 6. Same — Deposit. In order to complete the tender there wao no necessity under the circumstance of consigning the amount tendered. [Ed. Note. — Eor cases in point, see vol. 48, Cent. Dig. Vendor and Purchaser, § 344.] 7. Same — Other Amounts. The debtor need not tender other amounts he owes; in this instance the indebtedness which defendant claims should have been tendered, is to be settled under the terms of the decree. [Ed. Note. — Eor cases in point, see' vol. 48, Cent. Dig. Vendor and Purchaser, § 345.] 8. Evidence — Parol Evidence — Fraud—Testimony Excluded. Conversation of witnesses between themselves at the moment of signing is not admissible, especially as fraud had not been alleged. What was said by the two parties themselves at the time- was admitted. (Syllabus by the Court.)

How courts have described this case

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

granting motion for remand and finding that the economic loss rule did not necessarily bar the plaintiffs’ negligent repair claim against the dealership
granting motion for remand and finding that neither the economic loss rule nor the statute of limitations necessarily barred the plaintiffs’ negligent repair claim against the dealership
“Defendants have failed to show the economic loss rule entirely precludes Plaintiffs’ negligent repair claim” because “Plaintiffs allege problems with various subcomponents of the engine, including the rear driveshaft, engine compartment, and turbocharger.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breaux

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.