Court Opinion

ID: 9695714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:28:03.808043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:01.353977
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the evidence clearly and convincingly established fraud. In this respect, I agree with the concurring and dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Eagen. I do not believe, however, that the denial of specific performance was proper. I cannot accept Mr. Justice Eagen’s reasoning that, because appellees erroneously assumed that appellant would build only single family dwellings on the tract in question, a “sufficiently misleading concealment ... to justify the chancellor’s refusal to grant specific performance of the contract,” has been proved. I fail to see any distinction between “fraud” and “sufficiently misleading concealment.” Since, in my opinion, appellees failed to meet their burden of establishing fraud, I would grant the specific performance requested.