P filed a complaint against for three counts. The third alleged that D fraudulently induced P to continue to provide labor and material when D actually intended to terminate the subcontract without cause and without making payment for amounts already due, at a time when P's work was essentially complete. D filed a motion to dismiss the third count for failure to allege fraud with particularity. P responded by filing an amended pleading on 3 January 1986. The amended complaint set forth essentially the same allegations. P alleged that during the 'spring or summer of 1985,' Ds through their 'agents and employees' represented that P would be paid for all of its work under the subcontract. The amended pleading described for the first-time Ds as having previously 'secretly determined' to wrongfully terminate the subcontract, whereas the original complaint referred to a prior 'scheme or device' to effect such wrongful termination.

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

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.