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

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

Pacific (D) was a corporation engaged in aerial surveying and photogrammetric services. In 1965, Runyan (P) was a geologist and engineer employed by Tidewater. n October he responded to an ad placed by D in the Wall Street Journal for franchise territories in California. Eventually, in March 1966, P and D entered into a written contract for which P paid $25,000 to be an exclusive photogrammetric franchise in the counties of Inyo, Kern, Kings, and Tulare. P had resigned his position with Tidewater on February 18, 1966. Almost immediately, D did not live up to its end of the bargain. P complained that D was making charges for first order instrument work at arbitrary rates. On October 7, 1966, P gave D written notice of rescission based on fraud and failure of consideration. P sued for restitution and consequential damages. The trial court found in favor of P on his first count for rescission for failure of consideration but not on his other three counts for rescission for fraud nor for a common count of money lent. The trial court found that P was entitled to recover the franchise free and his net consequential damages in the sum of $5,273.25. Those net fees are listed on page 634 Rendlemen 6th edition. This appeal followed.

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

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