{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

CaseBrief1 - must need a misrepresentation of a material...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Vokes v. Arthur Murray Inc. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, 1968, 212 S0. 2d 906. FACTS Audrey E. Vokes wanted to become an accomplished professional dancer as a widow. So she decided to take classes from Arthur Murray Inc., a dance studio school founded by Arthur Murray. Vokes claimed that Arthur Murray’s employees sweet-talked her into thinking she could become an “excellent dancer.” Arthur Murray convinced her to sign up for $31,000 in dance lessons over a period of sixteen months. But when Vokes realized she was not skilled enough to be a professional dancer, she filed a suit against the school, alleging fraud. She appealed after the trial court dismissed her case. ISSUE 1) Can Arthur Murray’s employee’s opinion act as a fact and can it be actionable? 2) Can the opinion act as a fraudulent misrepresentation? DECISION 1) NO. If it was a fact then yes it would be actionable. But since an opinion in this situation of this case is not a fact then there cannot be further proceeding. 2) NO. A fraudulent misrepresentation
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: must need a misrepresentation of a material fact; the opinion in this case is not a material fact. REASON The employee of Arthur Murray was simply trying to consult better business with the company and with costumers. He or she might have needed to require the whole truth. Audrey Vokes herself could have easily continued on with what she has signed up for and make it worthwhile. In a more legal sense, this was neither a unilateral mistake nor a bilateral mistake. By definition, a mistake is where one of the contracting parties was mistaken about a material fact. Also by definition, an opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. Since the opinion in this situation was not an actionable fact, there was no mistake made. Vokes was misinterpreted by the opinion, not a material fact. Therefore, it was not a fraudulent misrepresentation....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online