Court Opinion

ID: 9725588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:54:57.062308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:16.838895
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, J.
(for remand). I agree that this matter must be remanded, for it is not clear what facts the trial court found as a basis for his decision.
I write separately, however, because I fear the discussions of "innocent misrepresentation” and "fraudulent misrepresentation” and "silent fraud” will confound the confusion which has marked the handling of this case. However valid or important *136such distinctions might be in suits for damages, the claim of misrepresentation here is asserted as a defense in a suit to enforce a contract.
Plaintiffs suit to enforce the indemnity contract is resisted by defendants’ claim that they were induced to enter into the contract by the misrepresentations of the plaintiffs agents.
If the trial court finds that the plaintiff
1) Made a representation of a material fact,
2) That such representation was false,
3) That the defendants relied on such representation as all or part of the inducement to enter into the contract, Converse v Blumrich, 14 Mich 109; 90 Am Dec 230 (1866), he should grant relief to the defendants.
Unless the trial court makes all the above findings, he should enforce the contract.
Ryan, J., concurred with Kavanagh, J.
Coleman, C.J., did not participate in the decision of this case.