Washtok v. Bayless

Oregon Supreme Court

Washtok v. Bayless

517 P.2d 660, 267 Or. 546, 1974 Ore. LEXIS 500

DecidedJanuary 4, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 517 P.2d 660 (Washtok v. Bayless) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Washtok v. Bayless, 517 P.2d 660, 267 Or. 546, 1974 Ore. LEXIS 500 (Or. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action of deceit to recover damages for an alleged misrepresentation by defendants as to the condition of an apartment complex which they sold to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appeal from a directed verdict for defendants.

Plaintiffs bought the property in 1968. In 1969 they discovered that the pipes in the entire water distribution system were pitted and corroded as a result of electrolysis. The complaint alleges that the sellers knew of the condition of the pipes at the time of sale bnt concealed the fact from plaintiffs.

We have carefully examined the record and can find no evidence from which the jury could draw the inference that defendants or their agents practiced any kind of deception upon plaintiffs to induce the sale.

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of defendants and that the judgment must be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action of deceit to recover damages for an alleged misrepresentation by defendants as to the condition of an apartment complex which they sold to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appeal from a directed verdict for defendants.

Plaintiffs bought the property in 1968. In 1969 they discovered that the pipes in the entire water distribution system were pitted and corroded as a result of electrolysis. The complaint alleges that the sellers knew of the condition of the pipes at the time of sale bnt concealed the fact from plaintiffs.

We have carefully examined the record and can find no evidence from which the jury could draw the inference that defendants or their agents practiced any kind of deception upon plaintiffs to induce the sale.

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of defendants and that the judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 P.2d 660, 267 Or. 546, 1974 Ore. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washtok-v-bayless-or-1974.