06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The first issue is whether the labeling of the envelope, allegedly containing<br />

$15,000 in cash, as “documents regarding school bills” constitutes a<br />

misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is “an assertion that is not in accordance<br />

with the facts.” Plaintiff asserts that “documents” suffices as a general description of<br />

currency. This is an untenable position. The term “documents regarding school bills”<br />

does not indicate that the contents are inherently valuable to third-party interlopers<br />

or others in DHL’s position. Plaintiff’s description is not in accord with the now<br />

alleged fact that there was cash in the envelope and, consequently, is a<br />

misrepresentation of the contents.<br />

The second element is whether the misrepresentation was fraudulent or<br />

material. If the misrepresentation was non-fraudulent or innocent, it must be<br />

material <strong>for</strong> the contract to be voidable. Rest. 2d § 164 cmt b. On the other hand, if<br />

the misrepresentation was fraudulent, it is not required to be material <strong>for</strong> the<br />

contract to be voidable.<br />

(1) A misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker intends his assertion<br />

to induce a party to manifest his assent and the maker<br />

(a) knows or believes that the assertion is not in accord with the facts,<br />

or<br />

(b) does not have the confidence that he states or implies in the truth of<br />

the assertion, or<br />

(c) knows that he does not have the basis that he states or implies <strong>for</strong><br />

the assertion.<br />

Rest. 2d § 162. The plaintiff claims that the description was as accurate as he felt it<br />

could be without inviting theft. By making such an assertion, to some extent plaintiff<br />

purposely misled DHL about the contents of the shipment. However, plaintiff also<br />

claims that he was unaware that DHL would not ship cash. In considering the<br />

requirement to view the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the<br />

Court is simply unwilling at this point to rule that the misrepresentation was<br />

fraudulent as a matter of law.<br />

The alternative factor to be considered under the second element is, if the<br />

misrepresentation is not fraudulent, is it, nevertheless, material.<br />

(2) A misrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a<br />

reasonable person to manifest his assent, or if the maker knows that it would<br />

be likely to induce the recipient to do so.<br />

Rest. 2d § 162. “The materiality of a misrepresentation is determined from the<br />

viewpoint of the maker.” Id. cmt c.<br />

In the instant case, plaintiff had in his possession airbills which are bills of<br />

lading. Based on this long-time use of DHL’s services, plaintiff cannot now be heard<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

286 CHAPTER V: CONTRACT DEFENSES

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!