LaFazia v. Howe
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
575 A.2d 182 (1990)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Howes (defendants) were conducting negotiations with Arthur LaFazia and Dennis Gasrow (LaFazia) (plaintiffs) for the sale of LaFazia’s deli. The Howes questioned whether the business was profitable, especially after seeing LaFazia’s tax returns, but LaFazia convinced them that it was a good business. The Howes signed a contract and bought the deli. A clause in the contract stated that the Howes were relying “on their own judgment as to the past, present or prospective volume of business or profits of the business of the Seller” and that they were not relying “on any representations of the Seller with respect to the same.” The purchase price was $90,000 and the Howes paid $60,000 and signed a promissory note for the other $30,000. The Howes were able to eventually pay $20,000 off the promissory note, but lost money on the deli because business was bad and never paid the remaining $10,000. LaFazia brought suit for breach of the promissory note and the Howes counterclaimed for fraud in the inducement of a contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for LaFazia. The Howes appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fay, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 826,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 992 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.
