Contracts: Printing Press-Fraud-Breach of Representations

Plaintiff, a commercial-printing company, purchased a commercial-grade printing press from defendant. Four years after the purchase, plaintiff filed suit, asserting a claim of fraud against defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the printing press had neither the speed nor the durability defendant alleged that it had at the time of the purchase. The district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Where plaintiff failed to plead facts showing defendant intended to defraud plaintiff when it made promises about the capabilities of the printing press and where plaintiff’s independent investigation about the capabilities of the press undercut plaintiff’s claim of detrimental reliance, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.

Judgment is affirmed.

Ambassador Press Inc. v. Durst Image Technology U.S. LLC (MLW No. 74499/Case No. 18-3017 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Benton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Ericksen, J. (Lawrence M. Shapiro, of Minneapolis, MN for appellant; Sybil Louise Dunlop, of Minneapolis, MN on brief) (Kevin Markow, of Fort Lauderdale, FL for appellee; Gary Charles Rosen, of Fort Lauderdale, FL, Yasin Daneshfar, of Fort Lauderdale, FL, and Susan Zetta Jorgensen, of Fort Lauderdale, FL on brief)