Donovan v. LAS BRANDS, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Donovan v. LAS BRANDS, INC.

242 S.W.3d 487, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 30, 2008 WL 126617

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

DocketWD 67271

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 S.W.3d 487 (Donovan v. LAS BRANDS, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donovan v. LAS BRANDS, INC., 242 S.W.3d 487, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 30, 2008 WL 126617 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

C. Dewitt Donovan appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, LAS Brands and Associated Wholesale Grocers, on his claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. Because Donovan failed to give defendants notice of breach and opportunity to cure, a contrac *488 tual condition precedent to bringing suit, summary judgment on his breach of contract claim was proper. Donovan did not establish that the defendants supplied false information in the projections for sales, profits, and markups, or in statements of future intent by an employee of LAS sufficient to sustain his claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. The balance of Donovan’s claims as to misrepresentation are associated with the breach of contract and cannot be the basis for a tort action for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

C. Dewitt Donovan appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, LAS Brands and Associated Wholesale Grocers, on his claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. Because Donovan failed to give defendants notice of breach and opportunity to cure, a contrac *488 tual condition precedent to bringing suit, summary judgment on his breach of contract claim was proper. Donovan did not establish that the defendants supplied false information in the projections for sales, profits, and markups, or in statements of future intent by an employee of LAS sufficient to sustain his claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. The balance of Donovan’s claims as to misrepresentation are associated with the breach of contract and cannot be the basis for a tort action for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 S.W.3d 487, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 30, 2008 WL 126617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donovan-v-las-brands-inc-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack