159 Md. App. 403 - Goldstein v. Miles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 14 district · 22 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The firm ownerj’s statements that he would sell [the former associates] his firm for a price below market value, upon his retirement, were not enforceable promises. These assertions did not contain any material terms of the sale such as purchase price, date of sale, interest rate, or terms of payment. Without these terms, it is impossible to determine what “the nature and extent of the parties’ obligations” were, if any. Because of the vague and indefinite nature of [the firm owner]’s assertions, [the former associates] could not have reasonably relied on them. Rather, [the firm owner]’s assertions amount to no more than statements of intention because they were not “communicated in such a way that the addressee of the expression [could] justly expect performance and ... reasonably rely thereon.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 217 Md. App. 500 - UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Thompson

2. “(1) If the defrauded party is content with the recovery of only the amount that he actually lost, his damages will be measured under that rule; (2) if the fraudulent representation also amounted to a warranty, recovery may be had for loss of the bargain because a fraud accompanied by a broken promise should cost the wrongdoer as much as the latter alone; (3) where the circumstances disclosed by the proof are so vague as to cast virtually no light upon the value of the property had it conformed to the representations, the court will award damages equal only to the loss sustained; and (4) where ... the damages under the benefit-of-the-bargain rule are proved with sufficient certainty, that rule will be employed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Dynacorp Ltd. v. Aramtel Ltd.

3. “In determining the proper measure of damages in fraud and deceit cases, Maryland applies the flexibility theory. Under that theory, a victim of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation may elect to recover either out-of-pocket expenses or benefit-of-the-bargain damages. The former will permit the plaintiff to recover his or her actual losses; the latter puts the defrauded party in the same financial position as if the fraudulent representations had in fact been true, by awarding as damages the difference between the actual value of the property at the time of making the contract and the value that it would have possessed if the representations had been true.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dynacorp Ltd. v. Aramtel Ltd.