About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

33 S. Cal. L. Rev. 227 (1959-1960)
Attempted Grand Theft by False Pretenses Where Victim is not Dedceived

handle is hein.journals/scal33 and id is 237 raw text is: NOTES III. SHOULD THE EVIDENCE BE ADMITTED IN SPITE OF THE SPECIFIC DISCLAIMER? In excluding the evidence in the Danann case, the court emphasized the desirability of certainty in contractual relations, stressing that the risk of occasional injury to a defrauded party is outweighed by the importance of upholding the sanctity of contracts. It felt that if the parties say that they contract without regard to representations concerning a specific subject, as a matter of law neither should be permitted to prove reliance on any such representation. It is submitted that where there is an issue of fraud, the sanctity of the contract should not be considered. Certainly the sanctity-of-contract con- sideration was not intended to protect a fraudulent party. As a matter of policy, persons contracting should not be permitted to stipulate that there has been no fraud. If the evidence is excluded in the name of certainty in contractual relations, not only the plaintiff, but also our legal system may be defrauded; for by use of an artful device called a specific disclaimer, the defendant may accomplish that which the law has otherwise denied him.19 Plaintiff should be allowed to maintain his action. This, itself would not render the specific disclaimer wholly ineffective. If such a clause exists, plaintiff may encounter difficulty in proving the representation or establishing reliance. The point is that plaintiff should have his day in court, even though proving his case is more difficult because of the specific disclaimer.-BARY R. WEISS. ATTEMPTED GRAND THEFT BY FALSE PRETENSES WHERE VICTIM Is NOT DECEIVED In the recent case of People v,. Camodeca,' the defendant falsely repre- sented to the owner of a bar that criminal charges were on file against the bar, and that they could be fixed and his license cleared if defendant were given 720 dollars to pass on to certain persons. The bar owner in- formed the district attorney and, at his request, arranged for a second 291For a summation of reasons for admitting the extrinsic evidence, see Annot., 56 A.L.R. 13, 56 (1928). Reasons given include: a written contract is deemed complete apart from any express stipulation to that effect, and therefore, a provision that the contract contains the entire agreement of the parties and includes all representations adds nothing to the legal effect of the instrument, a party should not be permitted to invoke an estoppel which is-brought about by his own fraud in order to avoid the legal consequences of the fraud; generally, parol evidence introduced to show fraud inducing a written contract is admissible notwithstanding its direct contradiction of the writing, and there is no reason why a provision of the contract that no representations other than those stated therein have been made, should be exempt from this principle of contradiction. 152 Cal. 2d 153, 338 P.2d 903 (1959). 19601

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most