SWEENEY COMPANY V. ENGINEERS-CONSTRUCTORS; INC.
109 F.R.D. 358 (1986)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Engineers (D) motioned to dismiss Sweeney's (P) contract action for
fraudulent inducement on the grounds that the fraud claim was not alleged with the
particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
FACTS: P filed a complaint against for three counts. The third alleged that D
fraudulently induced P to continue to provide labor and material when D actually intended to
terminate the subcontract without cause and without making payment for amounts already due,
at a time when P's work was essentially complete. D filed a motion to dismiss the third
count for failure to allege fraud with particularity. P responded by filing an amended
pleading on 3 January 1986. The amended complaint set forth essentially the same
allegations. P alleged that during the 'spring or summer of 1985,' Ds through their 'agents
and employees' represented that P would be paid for all of its work under the subcontract.
The amended pleading described for the first time Ds as having previously 'secretly
determined' to wrongfully terminate the subcontract, whereas the original complaint referred
to a prior 'scheme or device' to effect such wrongful termination.
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