Court Opinion

ID: 9791413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:10:24.724695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:36.105741
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the decision allowing the plaintiffs to rescind their contract and to retrieve from defendants their investment in it. But for the purpose of emphasizing the aspects of the case, which seem to me significant, and which impel my concurrence, I desire to comment upon two matters : the unequal position of the parties and the active concealment of material facts.
The plaintiffs were people who were practically without farm experience or knowledge. Mr. Kay Elder had contacted the defendants’ agent, (the co-defendant) Mr. Van Tassell, who was a licensed real estate broker, for the purpose of inquiring about the purchase of a farm. Plaintiffs had the right to assume that he had both the expertise and the integrity required to qualify him to serve in that capacity. By reason of this they could repose some confidence in his knowledge and in his honesty.1 The defendants Clawson, who had engaged Van Tassell as their agent, were also aware of this situation. We have heretofore recognized that where there is a wide difference in experience and business acumen resulting in the parties being in an unequal position for bargaining, this is a factor to be considered in the determining of the issues in dispute.2
Although it is true that Mr. Van Tassell indicated to plaintiffs the existence of a type of weeds on the farm, it is important to note the circumstances. He pointed the weeds out to Mr. Elder and asked him if he knew what they were, to which the latter replied: “Yes, that is ragweed * * *?”
Van Tassell replied, “That is all it is. It is just starting. Get yourself a spray can and spray it and you’ll be done with it.”
In this manner, and by assuring plaintiff that it was only the common ragweed, Mr. Van Tassell led plaintiff to believe that it was innocuous and easily dealt with. Thus, *385he not only did not tell Elder the truth about what the weed was, but deliberately created a false impression, in addition to remaining silent about the important matter of the quarantine.

. See statement in Reese v. Harper, 8 Utah 2d 119, 339 P.2d 410.

. Ibid; also Lewis v. White, 2 Utah 2d 101, 269 P.2d 865.