Goodman v. Dicker - Case Summary

University / Undergraduate
Modified: 22nd Feb 2024
Wordcount: 524 words


Law Expert

Disclaimer: This legal case summary was produced by one of our law experts as an informational resource for law students and professionals researching case law. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of

Cite This

Legal Case Summary

Summary: A historic case related to fraudulent misrepresentation in which Goodman was misled into selling his patent by Dicker.


In 1947, E.L. Goodman, an inventor, owned a patent for a new type of television tuner. He decided to sell his patent and was contacted by I. Dicker and L. Rosenfeld, who appeared interested in the patent. They misrepresented themselves as affluent businessmen connected to a large network of syndicated stores (Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.). Believing they had necessary resources and influence, Goodman sold his patent to them for $1,000 and 25% share in any company using this patent.

Subsequently, in 1948, Goodman found that the duo had no real resources and they had sold his patent for $150,000 to a third party (TV Selector Co.). He accused them of fraud and took the case to court.


The primary issue was whether Dicker and Rosenfeld intentionally misrepresented themselves and tricked Goodman into a disadvantageous sale of his patent. This was a clear matter of fraudulent misrepresentation. Secondly, the court needed to decide if Goodman was entitled to compensation given the fact that his patent was resold for a much higher price.


This case further established the principle that any form of misrepresentation, especially when aimed at fraudulent gain, is illegal. It emphasized the importance of truthfulness in conducting business or entering a commercial contract. The ruling of this case has influenced subsequent cases related to fraudulent misrepresentation, affirming that those who commit fraud must face legal consequences and possibly compensate the aggrieved party.


The court ruled in favour of Goodman, agreeing that he was defrauded by Dicker and Rosenfeld. The duo had grossly misled Goodman about their financial standing, thereby inducing him to sell his patent at a substantially low price. However, the compensation was an issue of debate. Ultimately, the court ordered Dicker and Rosenfeld to pay Goodman $60,000 as damages. This amount was derived from the profit they gained by reselling the patent.


  • Goodman v Dicker, 169 F.2d 684 (1948)

Journalist Brief

In Goodman v. Dicker, an inventor was deceived into selling his patent at a very low price by two fraudsters who portrayed themselves as wealthy and influential businessmen. Finding that he had been misled, the inventor sued the fraudsters. The court agreed that he was defrauded and ruled that he should receive a share of the profit gained from his patent's resale.


What was the main dispute in Goodman v. Dicker?

Answer: The main dispute was whether Dicker and Rosenfeld had defrauded Goodman by misrepresenting themselves to induce him to sell his patent cheaply.

What was the outcome of the case?

Answer: The court ruled in favour of Goodman, stating that he was defrauded. As compensation, Dicker and Rosenfeld were asked to pay him $60,000 from the profit they gained from selling his patent.

What is the legal significance of the Goodman v. Dicker?

Answer: The case reinforced the principle that fraudulent misrepresentation is illegal and that anyone who engages in this behavior could face legal consequences, including financial penalties.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Get Academic Help Today!

Encrypted with a 256-bit secure payment provider