Opinion ID: 1698496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: plaintiff induced to act or to refrain from acting

Text: The Soniats testified that they would not have bought the house had they seen the graph at the closing. Their testimony, if believed, would be sufficient to support a jury finding that they were induced to act because they had not been provided all the facts. We note that the defendants argue that the Soniats did not rely on the absent graph because the Soniats had had the property independently inspected. Nevertheless, this Court has stated: It is not indispensable that the misrepresentation or concealment shall be the sole inducement; it is sufficient if it materially contributes, and is of such character that the purchaser would not have consummated the contract, had he known the falsity of the statement, or the fact suppressed.  Marshall, 387 So.2d at 178 (quoting Jordan & Sons, 78 Ala. at 338) (emphasis added). We note that the inspection produced no information regarding the old termite damage. We also note that the Soniats stated that they would not have bought the house if they had seen the graph. Therefore, we hold that there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that the suppression of the graph materially contribute[d] and [was] of such character that the [Soniats] would not have consummated the contract, had [they] known ... the fact suppressed. See id.