Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?
|
Uh, no. There is also a duty not to mislead by speaking half truths, a duty not to fail to inform when you know what you have said may have been misleading, a duty to disclose based upon a relationship and superior knowledge, etc. Misrepresentation, deceit, omission, non-disclosure and concealment are all types of generic fraud. That's fraud 101