Finley v. Dalton
35 A.L.R. 3d 1364, 164 S.E.2d 763, 251 S.C. 586 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A buyer's misrepresentation about their intended use of land is not actionable fraud sufficient to rescind a sale unless the misrepresentation was material to the seller's decision and the seller was actually induced by that statement to enter into the contract. Absent a fiduciary duty, a buyer has no affirmative obligation to disclose facts that might enhance the property's value.
Facts:
- Duke Power Company formulated a secret plan to acquire a large area of land for a hydroelectric power project.
- Duke Power hired Roy S. Dalton as an undisclosed real estate agent to acquire the land.
- On or about February 8, 1964, Dalton approached the plaintiff to purchase a 138-acre tract of land.
- When the plaintiff asked Dalton why he wished to purchase the property, Dalton falsely represented that he wanted to buy it as a long-range timber investment for his children.
- Relying on his own assessment of the property's value, the plaintiff sold the 138-acre tract to Dalton on February 10, 1964, for $4,100.
- The plaintiff later learned the land had a much higher value for hydroelectric purposes, alleging it was worth at least $27,000.
- On March 31, 1965, approximately thirteen months after the sale, the plaintiff attempted to rescind the sale by tendering the purchase price plus interest to Dalton, who refused.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in a state trial court (court of first instance) seeking to rescind a deed to real estate.
- The defendants filed a demurrer, moving to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing the plaintiff's case.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a buyer's false statement regarding their intended use for a parcel of land constitute actionable fraud sufficient to rescind the sale when there is no fiduciary relationship between the parties and the seller was not induced by the statement to sell?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, Justice
No. A buyer's misrepresentation regarding their intended use of property does not constitute actionable fraud unless the seller proves the misrepresentation was material and that it induced the sale. The court reasoned that for a misrepresentation to be actionable, it must be material and the seller must have been induced to sell because of it. Here, the complaint failed to allege facts showing either materiality or inducement. Dalton's false statement about a 'timber investment' was not a representation as to the land's intrinsic value and did not induce the plaintiff to sell. Because no fiduciary relationship existed, Dalton had no duty to disclose Duke Power's plan or the land's higher potential value for that purpose. The plaintiff's allegation that he would have demanded more money if he knew the truth merely shows he would have held out for a higher price, which is insufficient to establish fraud.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional rule that, absent a fiduciary duty, a buyer with superior information is not obligated to disclose facts that may affect a property's value. It establishes a high bar for sellers seeking rescission based on a buyer's misrepresentation of purpose, distinguishing such statements from misrepresentations of a property's character or quality. The ruling clarifies that a buyer's reason for purchasing is generally not a 'material' fact that induces a sale. This precedent protects buyers who invest in researching the potential of a property from having their transactions unwound by sellers who later regret the sale price.
