Forster v. Boss

97 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds agreed to sell property to Ps. Ds represented that Ps could obtain a permit for a boat dock in front of their newly acquired property. Unknown to Ps, Ds had a boat-dock permit of their own that made it impossible for Ps to obtain the permit they had been promised. Ds do not contest the finding that they were guilty of fraud in this respect. And when Ps applied to Union Electric Company (which created the lake and has the right to grant permits) for a permit, their application was denied on the ground that Ds, already had a conflicting permit. To compensate the plaintiffs for this fraud, the jury awarded $12,250 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. When the property was sold, Ds promised that they would remove their swim dock from in front of the transferred property. They did not keep this promise. The jury awarded $2,500 in compensatory damages to Ps on account of this breach of contract. Ps also got a permanent injunction ordering Ds to remove the offending swim dock. In addition, and most important, they got their boat-dock permit from Union Electric. Union was a party defendant in the District Court. This appeal followed.