Jacques v. Roy

Decided December 27, 1956

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1956-12-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“an essential element of an action for damages for such representations, and the failure of the plaintiffs to establish that reliance is fatal to their action.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 16218 - Clifford St. John Sons v. the Farley Co., No. Cv89 0099957 (Dec. 14, 2000)

Relies on Bradley v. Oviatt

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1956-12-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2000

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee Curiam:.

¶1We have examined the testimony in the plaintiffs’ appendix which is made the basis for the claim that the finding should be corrected. We find nothing to support the claim that the statements by the defendant as to what he paid for the property or what he expected as a profit in reselling it were relied upon by the plaintiffs in making the purchase. The trial court found that these statements were not relied upon. Reliance upon claimed fraudulent representations is an essential element of an action for damages for such representations, and the failure of the plaintiffs to establish that reliance is fatal to their action. Bradley v. Oviatt, 86 Conn. *73863, 67, 84 A. 321. The plaintiffs do not seek a cancellation of the contract hut an adjustment of the purchase price by judicial decree. The record presents no basis for the suggested interference.

¶2There is no error.