Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 212 So.2d 906, 28 A.L.R.3d 1405 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968).

Prepared by Seth





Facts: Defendant is a corporation which authorizes the operation of dance schools throughout the nation under the name of Arthur Murray School of Dancing, through local franchised operators, one of whom was defendant J.P Davenport whose dancing establishment was in Clearwater. Plaintiff was a window of 51 years who always had a yen for dancing. She attended a dance party at the school where she whiled away the pleasant hours, sometimes in a private room, absorbing his accomplished sales technique in which he proclaimed her rosy future as an excellent dancer. He sold her eight ½ hour dance lessons to be utilized within one calendar month therefrom, for the sum of 14.50 cash in hand paid. Later she was sold fourteen dance courses totaling the aggregate 2302 hours of dancing lessons for a total cash outlay of 31,090.45. This was executed with a written agreement which said that No one will be informed that you are taking dancing lessons. Your relations with us are held in strict confidence. She was also induced into buying more hours to participate in a trip to Miami to dance with people from the Miami studioat her own expense. Also, she was induced into becoming a life member, which costs her 1,752.30. She was also induced into buying a student trip to Thialand at a cost of 2,049.00, at her own expense. Also she was prevailed upon to purchase an additional 347 hours to achieve the Gold Medal for 4,235.74. Finally, she was induced into buying 481 hours of instruction at a cost of 6,523.81 in order to be classified as a Gold Bar Member, the ultimate achievement of the dancing studio. A total of 14 separate contracts were procured by defendant Davenport and Arthur Murray, Inc. by false pretenses.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appeals final order dismissing with prejudice her complaint. Court reversed.

Issue: Whether she was under undue influence when she signed the agreement?

Rule: A statement of a party having superior knowledge may be regarded as a statement of fact although it would be considered as opinion if the parties were dealing on equal terms