Court Opinion

ID: 9763127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:37:06.204387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:39.541337
License: Public Domain

WELLIVER, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the opinion of the Court except insofar as it holds plaintiffs third amended petition sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud. Had plaintiff paid for all four pieces of the bedroom set with the understanding that defendant Thai would deliver them forthwith, I could agree with the conclusion reached by the majority. A fair reading of plaintiffs petition reveals, however, that she bargained for something else. Plaintiff alleges she paid $369 and accepted defendant’s tendered delivery of three pieces of the set. She further alleges that she “agreed to pay a balance of $142.99 ... following the delivery of the solid wood headboard.” Withholding payment for the headboard clearly indicates that plaintiff placed no reliance on Thai’s representations. At most, plaintiff has a cause of action for breach of the contract to deliver the headboard at some future time.