Court Opinion

ID: 9594179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:27:43.354465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:00.981360
License: Public Domain

Judge ROTHENBERG specially
concurring.
I write separately because of my concern that Part IV of the majority opinion, which reinstates plaintiffs fraud claim, not be construed as holding that a plaintiff may attempt to advance a claim based upon an unenforceable contract, see § 15-11-701, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), under the guise of a fraud claim and recover damages equal to the promised contract consideration. In my view, plaintiff may recover only those damages, to the extent proven, that are a direct result of his reliance on the alleged fraud.
I concur in the judgment because the case was bifurcated and plaintiffs evidence was limited to liability only. Since no evidence of damages was presented, I agree that plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity to prove that his claim for fraud and damages arising therefrom is not merely a reassertion of his failed claim for breach of contract.