Remedies for material misrepresentation or fraud include all remedies available under this article for nonfraudulent breach. Neither rescission or a claim for rescission of the contract for sale nor rejection or return of the goods shall bar or be deemed inconsistent with a claim for damages or other remedy.
Source: L. 65: p. 1342, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-721.
ANNOTATION
"Reason to know" formulation not exclusive remedy in fraud suits. The code does not require that the "reason to know" formulation be applied in fraud suits to the exclusion of other remedies; it only provides that the remedies available under the "reason to know" formulation are included among the remedies available to a defrauded purchaser. Wagner v. Dan Unfug Motors, Inc., 35 Colo. App. 102, 529 P.2d 656 (1974).
False representation of a material fact, even though innocently made, may merit rescission of a contract or revocation of acceptance. Keen v. Modern Trailer Sales, Inc., 40 Colo. App. 527, 578 P.2d 668 (1978).
Right to consequential damages. Since a party's right to consequential damages is presumably a "remedy" within the meaning of this section, application of the code to the question of the availability of damages for loss of use of a personal vehicle is warranted. Wagner v. Dan Unfug Motors, Inc., 35 Colo. App. 102, 529 P.2d 656 (1974).
Burden of proof. When fraud is pleaded, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to prove that defendant made the false representation with knowledge of its falsity or with utter disregard for its truth and falsity. Caldwell v. Kats, 38 Colo. App. 156, 555 P.2d 190 (1976), rev'd, 193 Colo. 384, 567 P.2d 371 (1977).