Warning

Info

Table of Contents
UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Stroup v. Conant

(1974)

Oregon Supreme Court - 520 P.2d 337

tl;dr:

A guy told a landlord that he was going to open a shop for trinkets in the space. He actually set up an adult bookstore and everyone else in the building was upset because it was scaring away business.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In the case of Stroup v. Conant (1974), the Oregon Supreme Court supported the revocation of a lease due to deceitful misrepresentation by the lessee. The case concerned Naomi Stroup, who rented a commercial space to Dennis Conant after he informed her that he would sell items such as watches, wallets, gifts, and novelties. Contrary to his word, Conant opened an adult bookstore, which Stroup opposed. Stroup filed a lawsuit against Conant to annul the lease, alleging that he misled her about the intended use of the property. The trial court ruled in Stroup's favor, directing Conant to vacate the premises and repay the rent. Conant appealed.

The Oregon Supreme Court confirmed the trial court's ruling, determining that Conant's statements were partial truths and concealments of specialized knowledge that led Stroup to agree to the lease. The court maintained that not only are direct misrepresentations grounds for a fraud-based action, but also silence or omission when there is an obligation to disclose. Furthermore, the court dismissed Conant's claim that Stroup was prohibited from revoking the lease because she did not initially offer to return the rent payments, as this issue was not brought up under a general denial.

This case is significant as it demonstrates that fraud can be committed through the concealment or suppression of vital information, in addition to making false statements. It also highlights that a party attempting to annul a contract based on fraud must propose to reinstate the prior status quo, but this proposition can be made at any point before the judgment.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Stroup v. Conant

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Stroup v. Conant case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingStroup v. Conant case brief facts & holding

Facts:Plaintiff Stroup induced to enter a lease with Defendant Conant,...

Holding:Affirmed. Defendant’s affirmative misdirection created a breach of duty that...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Stroup v. Conant case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Stroup v. Conant | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: TONGUE, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The plaintiff entered into a lease with the defendant for a space in a building, intending to operate a gift and novelty store. However, the defendant opened an adult book store instead, which violated the lease's terms. The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to rescind the lease and restore the status quo. The defendant argued that there was no evidence of misrepresentation, reliance, or damage, but conflicting testimony regarding the defendant's representations to the plaintiff and her son was presented. The court affirmed the rescission of the lease.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Stroup v. Conant case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Stroup v. Conant case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

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+.

14-Day Free Trial

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.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

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

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.

Brief anything. Instantly.

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.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

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.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

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.

Stroup v. Conant

Chat for Stroup v. Conant
brief-183
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.