Lipsit v. Leonard
Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1974.
64 N.J. 276, 315 A.2d 25.
Dawson, pp. 485-488
Facts: Leonard employed Lipsit for over seven years under a
series of yearly agreements. Lipsit
claimed that these agreements were accompanied by oral promises of a stake in
the business in the future. Leonard
finally offered Lipsit a stake in 1968, but Lipsit found the terms unacceptable
and was soon terminated. Lipsit filed a
complaint on both contract and tort theories, alleging that Leonard induced him
to become and remain employed by fraud.
Lipsit brought suit in New Jersey, but both parties and the trial court agreed that the
case was properly to be tried under New York law. The
defendant moved for summary judgment and the motion was granted by the trial
court. Both the contract and tort claims
were dismissed. The plaintiff appealed,
and the Appellate Division upheld the dismissal. The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
Issue: Can a tort action for fraud be maintained even if
enforcement of the contract on which it’s based is barred by the parol evidence
Rule: Under New York law, the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of
fraud inducing a written agreement when such evidence is introduced in a tort
action for money damages rather than an action for breach of contract.
Analysis: These guys are from the New Jersey Supreme Court!
They have to do New York
law. So they make sure to cite plenty of
authority from that state’s law. Since
the court is reviewing a summary judgment dismissal, all they have to find in
order to reverse is that the plaintiff has a plausible shot as a matter of law
under one of the theories.
They find that the contract
suit properly fails under the parol evidence rule. However, New York is found to follow the “out of pocket” rule of
damages in cases of fraud in the inducement.
This means that an action can be sustained and the proper measure of
damages is “indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as a direct
result of the wrong”.
The defendant tries to argue
that the plaintiff shouldn’t get the benefit of New York’s rule because he had filed suit under the majority “benefit
of the bargain” rule. The trial court
says that although the plaintiff may have a hard time making a case under the
“out of pocket” rule, he should have the chance to try.
Conclusion: The lower courts are reversed as to the dismissal of
the tort action.
Back to The Effects of Adopting a
to Casebook Notes