[DOWNLOAD] "Stratton v. Wood Construction Co." by Supreme Court of Kansas " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

eBook details

Title: Stratton v. Wood Construction Co.
Author : Supreme Court of Kansas
Release Date : January 11, 1955
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 60 KB

Description

The opinion of the court was delivered by This was an action to recover damages for misrepresentations
made in connection with a sale of real estate. The appeal is from
an order overruling a demurrer to the petition. The action was commenced in the district court of Johnson
County on January 31, 1953, by the filing of the petition.
Omitting formal averments, allegations relating to punitive or
exemplary damages, and its prayer such pleading states in
substance that prior to July 17, 1950, defendant was the owner of
certain real estate in Johnson County and by and through its
agents, servants and employees entered into oral negotiations
with plaintiffs resulting in their purchase of such property;
that during the negotiations preceding the sale defendant
represented that all the streets and all lateral sewer lines
affecting the real estate were furnished and the cost thereof
paid so that plaintiffs would not have to pay anything for any of
such improvements; that plaintiffs were ignorant of the true
facts concerning the matters relating to payment of such
improvements and, relying upon the truth of the representations
of the defendant respecting them, orally agreed to purchase the
property, describing it, for a stipulated price; that as a result
of such representations plaintiffs entered into a written
contract with defendant for the sale and purchase of such
property on July 17, 1950, and would not have purchased it for
any other price or terms except for their reliance upon the
defendant's representations respecting the paid status of the
streets and sewer lines affecting it; that the deal for the
property was consummated by a deed delivered on September 26,
1950; that all the representations concerning the payment of such
improvements were subsequently found to be false and fraudulent;
and that although such improvements had been made prior to the
sale the costs thereof, so far as they affected the property
purchased, had not been paid.