Court Opinion

ID: 9757182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:22:30.926718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:35.615891
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN,
dissenting.
A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium when his spouse finds he’s given her a cubic zirconium instead of a diamond in her engagement band, the one he said was worth twenty-one grand.
Our deceiver would claim that when his bride relied on his claim of value, she was not justified for she should have appraised it; and surely she could have, but the question is whether a bride-to-be ivould have.
The realities of the parties control the equation,1 and here they’re not comparable in sophistication; the reasonableness of her reliance we just cannot gauge with a yardstick of equal experience and age.
*78This must be remembered when applying the test by which the “reasonable fiancée” is assessed. She was 19, he was nearly 30 years older; was it unreasonable for her to believe what he told her?
Given their history and Pygmalion relation, I find her reliance was with justification. Given his accomplishment and given her youth, was it unjustifiable for her to think he told the truth?
Or for every prenuptial, is it now a must that you treat your betrothed with presumptive mistrust? Do we mean reliance on your beloved’s representation is not justifiable, absent third party verification?
Love, not suspicion, is the underlying foundation of parties entering the marital relation; mistrust is not required, and should not be made a priority. Accordingly, I must depart from the reasoning of the majority.

. We cannot measure the justification for this appellee’s reliance as if she were of equal age and experience.
It is held by the weight of authority that ordinary representations are not actionable unless the hearer was justified in relying thereon in the exercise of common prudence and diligence. But the respective character, intelligence, experience, age, and mental and physical condition of the parties are considerations which may vary this rule....
Emery v. Third National Bank of Pittsburgh, 314 Pa. 544, 171 A. 881, 882 (1934).
Determining whether reliance on a misrepresentation is justified is generally dependent, at least in part, upon such factors as the respective intelligence and experience of the parties....
Benevento v. Life USA Holding, Inc., 61 F.Supp.2d 407, 417 (E.D.Pa.1999) (citations omitted). See also Fort Washington Resources v. Tannen, 858 F.Supp. 455, 460 (E.D.Pa.1994)(court may consider sophistication and history of parties); Siskin v. Cohen, 363 Pa. 580, 70 A.2d 293, 295 (1950)(rescission for purchase of bar granted based on fraud; purchaser working under "handicap of inexperience”).