Jacques v. Roy

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Jacques v. Roy

128 A.2d 530, 144 Conn. 737

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 27, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 128 A.2d 530 (Jacques v. Roy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jacques v. Roy, 128 A.2d 530, 144 Conn. 737 (Colo. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam:.

We have examined the testimony in the plaintiffs’ appendix which is made the basis for the claim that the finding should be corrected. We find nothing to support the claim that the statements by the defendant as to what he paid for the property or what he expected as a profit in reselling it were relied upon by the plaintiffs in making the purchase. The trial court found that these statements were not relied upon. Reliance upon claimed fraudulent representations is an essential element of an action for damages for such representations, and the failure of the plaintiffs to establish that reliance is fatal to their action. Bradley v. Oviatt, 86 Conn. [738]*73863, 67, 84 A. 321. The plaintiffs do not seek a cancellation of the contract hut an adjustment of the purchase price by judicial decree. The record presents no basis for the suggested interference.

There is no error.

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

Pee Curiam:.

We have examined the testimony in the plaintiffs’ appendix which is made the basis for the claim that the finding should be corrected. We find nothing to support the claim that the statements by the defendant as to what he paid for the property or what he expected as a profit in reselling it were relied upon by the plaintiffs in making the purchase. The trial court found that these statements were not relied upon. Reliance upon claimed fraudulent representations is an essential element of an action for damages for such representations, and the failure of the plaintiffs to establish that reliance is fatal to their action. Bradley v. Oviatt, 86 Conn. [738]*73863, 67, 84 A. 321. The plaintiffs do not seek a cancellation of the contract hut an adjustment of the purchase price by judicial decree. The record presents no basis for the suggested interference.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.2d 530, 144 Conn. 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacques-v-roy-conn-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack