Harper v. Adametz
Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors
142 Conn. 218, 113 A.2d 136 (1955)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
William Tesar owned an 80-acre farm, 17 of which housed the farm’s buildings and other structures. Tesar was incompetent, and Joseph Tesar, William’s son and the conservator of William’s estate, hired Jere Adametz (Jere) to sell the farm. Harper (plaintiff) was interested in buying the farm. Jere told Joseph that he was offered $6,500 for the entire farm. This offer, however, did not actually occur. Subsequently, Harper offered Jere $7,000 for the entire farm. Jere did not convey this offer to Joseph. Rather, Jere told Harper that his offer had been rejected. At the same time, Jere sent $500 of his own money to Joseph as a down payment on the original $6,500 “offer.” Harper then offered $6,000 for the 17 acres of the farm that contained buildings. Jere accepted the offer. At this point, Jere told the Joseph that Harper only wanted to buy 17 acres, but that Jere himself wished to buy the other 63 acres for his son, Walter Adametz (Walter) (defendant). Joseph agreed, still not knowing of Harper’s original offer. In effect, Jere obtained 63 acres for his son at a price of $500, and also obtained a sales commission of $325 from the Tesars. Harper sued Walter for fraud. The trial court found that Harper did not suffer any injury, because Jere was Tesar’s agent, not Harper’s. Harper appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baldwin, J.)
Dissent (O’Sullivan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
