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

Hartwig (P) was a consultant to Kanner (D), an attorney, in three separate cases. D never paid P and P sued for a breach of contract. D defended on grounds that P made fraudulent misrepresentations and the contracts were thus void. At trial, P admitted that he had padded his resume and did not reveal a conflict of interest. P had indicated that he got a Bachelor of Science instead of a Bachelor of Arts degree. P also testified that he had verbally informed D of these matters prior to testifying in D's cases. D claimed that P never disclosed any potential conflicts in interest. D presented no evidence as he failed to appear. The district court entered a directed verdict in the amount of $44,225.04 for P. D appealed; the matter should have been submitted to the jury as a material issue of fact existed as to whether the contract was void based on misrepresentation.

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

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

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