Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)

Citation: Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985) 1.
Parent Document: Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1985-04-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2048661/solomon-v-birger/ ↗

Full Text

938 chars

1. Fraud. Actions for damages based on deceit sound in tort, a fact reflected in reported cases where the gravamen was that the plaintiff had been induced into a real estate transaction through the misrepresentation of a material fact by the defendant. See, e.g., Sheffer v. Rudnick, 291 Mass. 205, 205 (1935); Forman v. Hamilburg, 300 Mass. 138, 139 (1938) (wherein it is noted, however, at 142, that upon discovery of the fraud the plaintiff could have elected to rescind the contract); Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. Bank, 311 Mass. 677, 677-678 (1942); Kabatchnick v. Hanover-Elm Bldg. Corp., 328 Mass. 341, 342 (1952); Fogarty v. Van Loan, 344 Mass. 530 (1962) (whether action for breach of warranty will lie for oral representation of quality of real estate not decided); Friedman v. Jablonski, 371 Mass. 482, 483-484 (1976); Nei v. Burley, 388 *638Mass. 307, 310 (1983); Henshaw v. Cabeceiras, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 225, 225-226 (1982).7

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text