Weiss liquidating corp
Weiss liquidating corp - Online sex
Plaintiffs' evidence was that in reliance thereon, plaintiffs permitted the equipment to be brought in and sold, but that the sale, and Northwest's subsequent actions, were contrary to what it had promised plaintiffs. The liquidation was to be on a piecemeal basis so as to yield the highest return.
Fall Creek was later adjudicated bankrupt and the plaintiff Auld is trustee in bankruptcy for Fall Creek. At that meeting it was decided that Automotive would bid on the trucks.The jury found Northwest had defrauded Fall Creek and Weiss and awarded Weiss general damages and punitive damages and the trustee for Fall Creek, general damages. The parties did not discuss allowing Fall Creek to use the trucks after the sale.Northwest contends the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict upon the ground plaintiffs had not proved fraud. A failure to subsequently perform the promise is, of itself, insufficient evidence of fraud. If Automotive bid what it believed to be the value of the trucks, $100,000, it would take a loss as the balance owing which Automotive guarantied was $150,000.The parties agree that when the alleged fraud consists of promises, as was the case here, the plaintiffs must prove that at the time Northwest made the promises, it did not intend to perform. For this reason, at this meeting the parties discussed the possibility that Automotive might bid for all the equipment. The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases secured verdicts of approximately one million dollars against the defendant.The causes of action were based on fraud and the sales of property held as security in an alleged commercially unreasonable manner. Fall Creek Gravel Co., Inc., is a corporation that built logging roads.
The plaintiff Weiss is the president and sole stockholder.
In the fall of 1969 the defendant, Northwest Acceptance Corporation, financed Fall Creek, including the acquisition of trucks by Fall Creek.
Fall Creek acquired the trucks through Automotive Equipment which was Northwest's largest dealer and which had several officers and directors in common with Northwest.
Automotive guarantied the payments due Northwest from Fall Creek on the truck acquisitions.
Weiss guarantied Fall Creek's obligations to Northwest and to other creditors. We conclude that the testimony can reasonably be construed to support a finding that Northwest did not intend to perform material portions of the promises allegedly made by it or made promises with reckless disregard of whether it would perform.
In the year or year and a half prior to August 1970, Fall Creek had financial difficulties. About August 20, 1970, Northwest began to repossess the equipment. According to plaintiffs' evidence, Northwest then agreed with Fall Creek through its president, Weiss, that if Fall Creek voluntarily relinquished the equipment Northwest would allow Fall Creek to use the equipment, finish its jobs and later to liquidate in an advantageous manner. There was testimony that Northwest promised that it would buy the equipment, allow Fall Creek to use it thereafter and, when Fall Creek had finished the jobs, liquidate whatever equipment was necessary to complete the payment of any balance due Northwest.