The defendants are appealing a decision that denied them a new trial in a case where the plaintiff seeks to cancel a contract to buy the defendants' summer resort due to alleged fraudulent statements. The trial court found that the defendants made knowingly untrue representations to deceive and induce the plaintiffs to enter into the contract at a price higher than the property's real value. The court ordered rescission of the contract and a return of the money paid by the plaintiffs with interest. The defendants claimed that they were making good money from the resort, but the court found that this representation was knowingly untrue and an inducing factor in the plaintiffs' decision to enter into the contract. The legal principle of fraud holds a person liable if they make a false representation of a past or existing material fact, knowing it to be false or without knowing whether it is true or false, with the intention of inducing the other person to act in reliance upon it, and the other person is deceived and suffers pecuniary damage as a result. The court found that the defendants' persistent withholding of the books of business operations, after making direct representations of expenses and profits to prospective purchasers who expressed a desire to see the books, justifies an inference that the defendants knew their representations were false and were made with intent to conceal the truth. The court found that a bad motive is not an essential element of fraud. If the court's finding on this representation is supported by evidence, the order denying a new trial must be upheld.

Justice Peterson dissents from the majority's opinion, stating that the plaintiffs did not prove fraud. The evidence shows that the defendants were willing to sell the property for $100,000, and the plaintiffs made an offer of $90,000 before any misrepresentations were made. The parties ultimately agreed on a purchase price of $95,000, which was only a slight increase from the plaintiffs' original offer. Justice Peterson argues that such a small increase cannot be considered fraud, and the sale was ultimately made at the plaintiffs' own price. The judge erred in finding fraud based on the plaintiffs' age and assumed lack of experience, as youth does not automatically equate to inexperience.

The dissenting opinion in the case stated that the trial court's finding that the property was sold for more than its worth was not supported by substantial evidence. The evidence presented by the plaintiffs regarding misrepresentation of earnings did not sustain a finding of fraud. Opinions expressed about future prospects of a business cannot be used as a basis for fraud. Plaintiffs did not allege that defendants suppressed or withheld facts about their past experiences in operating the property. The court relied on plaintiffs' lack of experience and their ages, but defendants were not much older than plaintiffs when they purchased the property. Both parties were dealing at arm's length.