3.The affirmative defense to this however is misrepresentation (fraudulent).
2.Intent: To knowingly give false statements of material fact reasonably relied on by Tanner in purchasing the property.
3.Conduct: Resulted in lost profit margins and further loss of expected profits.
4.Damages: Actual loss of profits
5.Punitive Damages: Losses from potential investments of capital
In the fraudulent misrepresentation Tanner was informed of the current and projected income of the hotel along with specific reasoning on why it was a good spot, due to the functionality of a hi-way next to it. This fraudulent misrepresentation makes the contract voidable since there was false statements that were not given as just pure opinion but actual fact that was not true. Furthermore, this leads into the tort of deceit. Grano knowingly gave Tanner false statements of material fact that Tanner relied on like any reasonable person would when purchasing a property. The only defense Grano has is that he gave Tanner a book of facts, which does not make a good defense since Grano was telling Tanner that these were facts and matched the same as in the book, once again being deceitful and misrepresenting the facts. If I was the judge in this I would find in Tanner’s favor since the contract would be voidable due to the fraudulent misrepresentation and fine Grano for the tort o