Another pertinent factor is that there was a fiduciary relationship 440*440 between the parties at the time of the fraudulent representations. [16] Although the general rules relating to pleading and proof of facts excusing a late discovery of fraud remain applicable, it is recognized that in cases involving such a relationship facts which would ordinarily require investigation may not excite suspicion, and that the same degree of diligence is not required. In Rutherford v. Rideout Bank, 11 Cal.2d 479, 486 [80 P.2d 978, 117 A.L.R. 383], it was said that because of such a relationship plaintiff could not be charged with lack of diligence even though an inquiry would have disclosed the true value of the property involved. (See, also, Bainbridge v. Stoner, 16 Cal.2d 423, 430 [106
Bachelors degree in teaching? - 0 views
1More
Liberty University PHSC 210 Week 5 Quiz - 0 views
1More
Ashford-University ECE 332 Homework and Assignment Help - 0 views
10More
Video Viewing with a Purpose - 125 views
shared by Keith Schoch on 27 Feb 14
- No Cached
anayahamber, jessicaandris, oompfh, anonymous, mamdouh_hfz, hgvtraininguk0, agenmeditea, and mollyjack liked it
« First
‹ Previous
101 - 120 of 120
Showing 20▼ items per page