Williams v. Rank & Son Buick, Inc.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1969 · Torts

170 N.W.2d 807 (1969)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsFraudMisrepresentationRelianceintent to defraudclear and convincing evidencejustifiable relianceobvious falsity

Facts

The plaintiff bought a used Chrysler Imperial from the defendant dealer. The car was advertised as having "FACTORY AIR CONDITIONING," and the plaintiff testified that the salesman also represented that the car had air conditioning. The car in fact was not equipped with air conditioning. The plaintiff examined the car on the lot and was permitted to take it off the lot unaccompanied for about one and one-half hours before purchase.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of fraud in the car sale, particularly whether the plaintiff proved reliance on the false representations by clear and convincing evidence and whether any such reliance was justified.

Rule

To establish fraudulent representation, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) a statement of fact was untrue; (2) it was made with intent to defraud and to induce action; and (3) the plaintiff actually relied on it and was thereby induced to act to his injury. A party cannot justifiably rely on a representation whose falsity was discoverable by ordinary observation, judged in light of the person's intelligence, experience, and relationship with the other party.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Madison, Nora Patel bought a used pickup from Lakeview Motor Center on April 8. At trial, she offered only a newspaper ad dated April 10 stating the truck had four-wheel drive, and she testified she had gone to the lot because of 'an ad like that one' she saw before buying.

If Nora sues for fraud based on the advertisement, which is the strongest argument against her claim under the governing rule?

Explanation. Fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, including actual reliance. Where the only advertisement in evidence is dated after the purchase, an inference that the plaintiff relied on an earlier identical ad is not clear and convincing. The problem is not that ads are categorically irrelevant or must be written into the contract; it is insufficient proof of actual pre-purchase reliance.