|
4856 Although within a year after making an investment plaintiffs learned that its value had diminished, the delayed discovery rule prevented the statute of limitations from beginning to run on their fraud cause of action against persons who falsely informed them that the enterprise in which they invested had failed and was no longer in existence until they had reasonable ground to suspect wrongdoing; the action did not accrue and the statute of limitations did not begin to run until plaintiffs discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that the enterprise was still in existence and was generating revenue.CitationCLEVELAND v INTERNET SPECIALTIES (Delayed Discovery) 171 CA4 24 [See: Gutierrez v Mofid 39 C3 892; Fox v Ethicon 35 C4 797, T/AT 6/05]
|
|
