Court Opinion

ID: 9581757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:18:23.848337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:13.771614
License: Public Domain

Hall, Judge,
concurring. I agree that the law of Georgia is correctly stated in the majority opinion.
The better rule regarding fraud in the factum between the parties was well stated by Lord Chelmsford in Directors &c. of the Central It. Co. of Venezuela v. Kisch, Law Rep., 2 H. L. 99, 120 (1867): “But it appears to me that when once it is established that there has been any fraudulent misrepresentation or wilfull concealment by which a person has been induced to enter into a contract, it is no answer to his claim to be relieved from it to tell him that he might have known the truth by proper inquiry. He has a right to retort upon his objector, ‘You, at least, who have stated what is untrue, or have concealed the truth, for the purpose of drawing me into a contract, cannot accuse me of want of caution because I relied implicitly upon your fairness and honesty.’ ” This is also the view in many other jurisdictions. 37 CJS 274, § 530 (c). In seeking to choose between a fraudfeasor and a negligent party, the Georgia law unfortunately goes with the alleged crook.