Court Opinion

ID: 9757580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:48:28.881286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:41.271547
License: Public Domain

RUIZ, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I have one disagreement with the reasoning in the majority’s opinion. In my view the trial court correctly directed a verdict in favor of Kozy Korner on R & D’s claim of fraud because the essence of R & A’s claim is grounded on a breach of contract for the sale of a commercial business. What is in dispute in this ease is not whether one party “misled” the other into entering a lease agreement to its detriment. Cf. Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (reversing trial court’s grant of a directed verdict striking fraud counts against realtor and termite inspection company that deceived prospective home buyer by withholding information about extent of termite damage in home in order to induce purchase contract between prospective home buyer and home seller). What is in dispute in the instant case is what were the terms of a contract that both parties acknowledge existed between them. The parties’ oral understanding that the payments were to purchase the business, and not just for rent, are as much a part of their contract as the written lease agreement and can be considered by the court for the reasons set out in footnote 8 of the majority’s opinion. Therefore, I concur with the majority that, on remand, the trial court should consider whether the facts alleged as a basis for the fraud claim, if proven, make out a contract claim. Because Kozy Korner has been well aware of all the facts alleged by R & A as the basis for its claims, I perceive no *1075unfairness in allowing R & A to refocus its action exclusively on a contract theory.