The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.