Fidance v. Giordano
237 A.2d 393, 43 Del. Ch. 477, 1967 Del. LEXIS 284
This text of 237 A.2d 393 (Fidance v. Giordano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Fidance v. Giordano, 237 A.2d 393, 43 Del. Ch. 477, 1967 Del. LEXIS 284 (Del. 1967).
Opinion
After a careful review of all the evidence, we are of the opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed for the following reasons:
1. There are ambiguities in the written agreement, and the Chancellor was accordingly justified in admitting oral evidence.
2. There was ample evidence to justify the Chancellor’s basic ruling that appellant paid $6000 to appellee to purchase a one-half interest in the partnership; that the “leasehold improvements” were incorrectly included in the balance sheet because the accountant was unacquainted with the facts; and that this alleged asset was not a firm asset. No other item in the account is presently questioned.
3. The refusal of interest and counsel fees was, under the facts of this case, well within the Chancellor’s discretion and does not constitute reversible error.
The judgment below will be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Newnam v. Board of Ed. of Mt. Pleasant Sch. Dist.
350 A.2d 339 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1975)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
237 A.2d 393, 43 Del. Ch. 477, 1967 Del. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidance-v-giordano-del-1967.