cannot be twisted from their setting and measured in the same manner
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
pipeline. And the court is of the view that that evidence supports the
conclusion that Mr. Nokes did indeed undertake to assume the role of
the one producing this information and seeking to have [Persson]
[repose] his trust and confidence in [him].”
**350 The evidence supports the view that Nokes undertook to produce
information about the products the company had available or “in the
pipeline,” and that he failed to disclose the Tap Light. From this, liability
[8][9][10] We review first the basic principles of fiduciary and confidential
relations. The two terms are often said to be synonymous, but there are
“significant differences.” (Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop
relationship.’ ” (Richelle L., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 271, 130
Cal.Rptr.2d 601, quoting Barbara A. v. John G. (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d
369, 382, 193 Cal.Rptr. 422.) A confidential relation may exist where
“accepted the relationship.” ‘ ” (Richelle L., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p.
272, fn. 6, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 601, quoting Chodos, The Law of Fiduciary
Duties (2000) pp. 49- 50.) A “relationship” must exist over a period of
fact.
The
key
factor
in the
existen
ce of a
fiduciar
the
propert
y of
ships
may
exist
Bank of
Americ
a,
Persson testified that no one in his position would have signed away his
interest in the corporation on the same day a commercial for a new
product was scheduled to air, because results from spot commercials in
necessary **353 to see whether or not the Tap Light commercial was a
success. [FN11]
FN11. When Nokes was asked if he “would have wanted to wait the
shareholder’s decision to sell shares. [FN12] The cases merely support
the general and undisputed points that hindsight may not be used to
determine whether a fact is material, and that forecasts of a corporation’s
unimportant that the jury could not reasonably find that a reasonable man
would have been influenced by it’ ” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 977,
64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903, quoting Rest.2d Torts, ß 538, com. e,
protecti
on
practic
rs at
the
time of
exchan
ges
and
action
to be
taken
correct in pointing out that, if damages do not flow from the concealment,
corporation correctly in the first place, not by the concealment. However,
Persson was deprived of information he should have had in making his
evaluation of the price at which to sell, and from this deprivation it is
discovery that the sellers had actually refused the offer. As the plaintiff
conceded on appeal, he suffered no damages from the delay, because
his inability to begin construction was caused by the sellers’ refusal to
non-union company, during a union campaign. The parties performed
under the agreement for several months and then the company
terminated the agreement. The court found that, because the parties
B. The Smart Inventions appeal: Smart Inventions was liable for
Nokes’s fraudulent concealment under principles of respondeat
superior.
v.
1467,
1488,
255
(9th ed.
1988)
Torts, ß
ng that
principl
e.
conceal
ed or
suppre
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
pipeline. And the court is of the view that that evidence supports the
conclusion that Mr. Nokes did indeed undertake to assume the role of
the one producing this information and seeking to have [Persson]
[repose] his trust and confidence in [him].”
**350 The evidence supports the view that Nokes undertook to produce
information about the products the company had available or “in the
pipeline,” and that he failed to disclose the Tap Light. From this, liability
[8][9][10] We review first the basic principles of fiduciary and confidential
relations. The two terms are often said to be synonymous, but there are
“significant differences.” (Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop
relationship.’ ” (Richelle L., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 271, 130
Cal.Rptr.2d 601, quoting Barbara A. v. John G. (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d
369, 382, 193 Cal.Rptr. 422.) A confidential relation may exist where
“accepted the relationship.” ‘ ” (Richelle L., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p.
272, fn. 6, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 601, quoting Chodos, The Law of Fiduciary
Duties (2000) pp. 49- 50.) A “relationship” must exist over a period of
fact.
The
key
factor
in the
existen
ce of a
fiduciar
the
propert
y of
ships
may
exist
Bank of
Americ
a,
Persson testified that no one in his position would have signed away his
interest in the corporation on the same day a commercial for a new
product was scheduled to air, because results from spot commercials in
necessary **353 to see whether or not the Tap Light commercial was a
success. [FN11]
FN11. When Nokes was asked if he “would have wanted to wait the
shareholder’s decision to sell shares. [FN12] The cases merely support
the general and undisputed points that hindsight may not be used to
determine whether a fact is material, and that forecasts of a corporation’s
unimportant that the jury could not reasonably find that a reasonable man
would have been influenced by it’ ” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 977,
64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903, quoting Rest.2d Torts, ß 538, com. e,
protecti
on
practic
rs at
the
time of
exchan
ges
and
action
to be
taken
correct in pointing out that, if damages do not flow from the concealment,
corporation correctly in the first place, not by the concealment. However,
Persson was deprived of information he should have had in making his
evaluation of the price at which to sell, and from this deprivation it is
discovery that the sellers had actually refused the offer. As the plaintiff
conceded on appeal, he suffered no damages from the delay, because
his inability to begin construction was caused by the sellers’ refusal to
non-union company, during a union campaign. The parties performed
under the agreement for several months and then the company
terminated the agreement. The court found that, because the parties
B. The Smart Inventions appeal: Smart Inventions was liable for
Nokes’s fraudulent concealment under principles of respondeat
superior.
v.
1467,
1488,
255
(9th ed.
1988)
Torts, ß
ng that
principl
e.
conceal
ed or
suppre