LAFAZIA V. HOWE
575 A.2d 182 (1990)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the sale of a delicatessen. Lafazia (P),
sellers, instituted an action against Howe (D), buyers, for breach of a promissory note. D
appealed from a summary judgment for P.
FACTS: Howe (D) met with Lafazia (P) to discuss purchasing P's deli. P represented that
the business was very profitable, but they were burned out and wanted to sell. D requested
all the bona fides regarding financial data and P related that they did not keep good books
as they conducted an all cash business. The tax returns showed that the business was not
viable. When confronted with the written facts, P pointed out to D that P lived in fancy
houses, drove fancy cars, and supported a family with three children. D visited the store a
number of times and it appeared to be very busy. D eventually agreed to pay $90,000 with
$60,000 paid up front and a promissory note for the rest. D was represented at closing by
their son, attorney at law. The contract included merger and disclaimer clauses about not
relying upon the representations of P. Things went bad from the very start. D realized he
was taken but still paid $20,000 due on the promissory note. D lost money and left $10,000
on the promissory note unpaid and sold the business for $45,000 a few months later. P sued
on the promissory note. The trial court awarded summary judgment. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment