Wessels v. Weiss Bros.

Citations

• 156 Pa. 591
• 27 A. 535
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1386

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Sale — Rescission—Insolvency—Fraud.</p> <p>Unless there are convincing facts in evidence to show with clear certainty that a condition of insolvency was well known to a purchaser of goods at the time when he asserted solvency as a means of procuring a sale of goods to himself, his assertion does not have that aspect of fraud or artifice or misrepresentation which is required to abrogate an executed contract.</p> <p>Ii an intending purchaser has a right to regard himself as solvent, and firmly believes that he is so, and therefore asserts his solvency to an intending seller who sells him goods, his. assertion of his solvency is not fraudulent, even though insolvency actually arises before payment for the goods is made.</p> <p>It does not follow that, if a business man’s obligations exceed his resources and he ought to have known the fact, his assertion of his ability to pay for an intended purchase was a trick or artifice to deceive the seller. It might be so or it might not, depending on the other facts in the case. But intrinsically and by itself alone it would not be. The evidence of fraud in this case was held not sufficient to submit to the jury.</p>