Court Opinion

ID: 9845332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:19:13.482187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:01.358002
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
concurring:
The parol evidence rule does not apply when it is alleged and shown that the execution of a written instrument was procured by fraud. Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, Second Edition, § 257. Here, defendant, on the ground of fraud, seeks to rescind the contract in its entirety.
Defendant, in its further answer and defense, alleges the reasonable market value of plaintiffs’ property with its use restricted to “residential” purposes is only $12,500.00 instead of the contract price of $24,-500.00; that plaintiffs’ agent represented to defendant that plaintiffs’ property “had no restrictions that would prohibit its use for business purposes except zoning restrictions of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, which restricted its use to office and institutional use,” when in fact the use of plaintiffs’ property is restricted to “residential” purposes only; that said false representations were made with knowledge of their falsity or recklessly without knowledge of their truth and as a positive assertion; that they were made with the intention that they would be relied upon by defendant; that they were in fact relied upon and acted upon by defendant in the execution of the contract; and that defendant has been damaged on account thereof.
Unquestionably, the elements of fraud are sufficiently alleged. The narrow question for decision is whether the fact that the written contract contains the words, “It is understood that the property will be conveyed subject to such conditions, reservations and restrictions as appear in instruments constituting the chain of title,” is sufficient to establish as a matter of law that defendant could not reasonably rely on said false representations. In my view, whether defendant could and did reasonably rely on said false representations should not be determined until defendant has had opportunity to bring forward its evidence. Hence, I concur.