Minnesota Supreme Court - 41 N.W.2d 561, 230 Minn. 246
In the 1950 Minnesota Supreme Court case Spiess v. Brandt, a couple, the Spiesses, sued the Brandts, two siblings, for fraud and rescission of contract after purchasing a summer resort from them. The Brandts had provided false information about the resort's income and expenses, convincing the Spiesses to buy it for $95,000. The couple paid a $10,000 deposit before realizing the resort was not as profitable as they had been led to believe and required significant repairs.
The trial court ruled in the Spiesses' favor, granting rescission, and the Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld this decision. The higher court determined that the Brandts were liable for fraud, and the Spiesses were entitled to rescission, applying a broad test for fraud. According to this test, a defendant must have made a false representation of material fact, knowing it to be false or not confirming its truth, intending for the plaintiff act upon it. Plus, the plaintiff must be deceived and act on this misinformation, causing financial harm.
The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected arguments that the Spiesses had waived their right to rely on the Brandts' representations. This case set a high standard for fraud in Minnesota by emphasizing its serious nature and focusing on each plaintiff's experience instead of generalizing. The court also ruled that a plaintiff's investigation into a representation does not change their right to rely on it unless the falsity is uncovered.
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.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.