Jensen v. Snow, 163 A. 784, 786 Sup. Jud. Ct.Maine 1933), to wit: “No principle of law is better settled than that which requires the agent in all dealings concerning the subject-matter of his agency to act with utmost good faith and loyalty and disclose all facts within his knowledge which bear materially upon his principal’s interests.
The rule that withholding information, when good faith and honest dealing require that it shall be given, is as culpable as misrepresentation as to facts concerning which good faith and honest dealing require the truth to be spoken is fully applicable to the relation of principal and agent.
As has been said, it is fraud to deal with a party in ignorance and leave him so.
It is not necessary that the party sought to be charged should have created the false impression nor intended it.
It is sufficient that he knows it and takes advantage of it.”
Cummings Manufacturing Co. v. Smith, 113 Me. 347, 351, 93 A. 968; Barrett v. St. Ry. Co., 110 Me. 24, 29, 85 A. 306; Prentiss v. Russ, 16 Me. 30; Lapish v. Wells, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 175.
“Concealment with intent to defraud of facts which one is duty-bound in honesty to disclose is of the same legal effect and significance as affirmative misrepresentation of fact.”
Nasaba Corp. v. Harfred Realty Corp., 39 N.E.2d 243, 295 (Ct.App.N.Y. 1942). “Where a party is entitled to inquire of another, who is required to respond, respondent is guilty of fraud if he conceals any material fact to the inquirer’s hurt and respondent’s advantage. Sovereign Camp W.O.W. v. Boykin, 181 So. 741, 742 (Sup.Ct.Miss. 1938).
The rule that withholding information, when good faith and honest dealing require that it shall be given, is as culpable as misrepresentation as to facts concerning which good faith and honest dealing require the truth to be spoken is fully applicable to the relation of principal and agent.
As has been said, it is fraud to deal with a party in ignorance and leave him so.
It is not necessary that the party sought to be charged should have created the false impression nor intended it.
It is sufficient that he knows it and takes advantage of it.”
Cummings Manufacturing Co. v. Smith, 113 Me. 347, 351, 93 A. 968; Barrett v. St. Ry. Co., 110 Me. 24, 29, 85 A. 306; Prentiss v. Russ, 16 Me. 30; Lapish v. Wells, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 175.
“Concealment with intent to defraud of facts which one is duty-bound in honesty to disclose is of the same legal effect and significance as affirmative misrepresentation of fact.”
Nasaba Corp. v. Harfred Realty Corp., 39 N.E.2d 243, 295 (Ct.App.N.Y. 1942). “Where a party is entitled to inquire of another, who is required to respond, respondent is guilty of fraud if he conceals any material fact to the inquirer’s hurt and respondent’s advantage. Sovereign Camp W.O.W. v. Boykin, 181 So. 741, 742 (Sup.Ct.Miss. 1938).
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment