Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
LAWYER2
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:15 pm

Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!

Postby LAWYER2 » Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:22 pm

Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 :lol:

Purchaser of home brought action against vendor and broker for rescission and damages. The Supreme Court, New York County, Lehner, J., dismissed, and purchaser appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Rubin, J., held that: (1) vendor was estopped to deny existence of poltergeists on the premises, so that house was haunted as a matter of law; (2) equitable remedy of rescission was available; (3) vendor who had undertaken to inform the public at large about the existence of poltergeists had a duty to inform purchaser; (4) haunting is not a condition which can and should be ascertained by reasonable inspection of the premises; but (5) there was no cause of action against the broker.

What a perfect case to read for Halloween!!!!
I'm a nerd I know . . . . lol
Last edited by LAWYER2 on Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
capitalacq
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:42 am

Re: Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!

Postby capitalacq » Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:41 am

LAWYER2 wrote:Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 :lol:

What a perfect case to read for Halloween!!!!
I'm a nerd I know . . . . lol

i feel so bad for you

User avatar
LAWYER2
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!

Postby LAWYER2 » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:54 pm

capitalacq wrote:
LAWYER2 wrote:Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 :lol:

What a perfect case to read for Halloween!!!!
I'm a nerd I know . . . . lol

i feel so bad for you



did you look up the case? lol, reserve judgment for after finals!

UWO-BADGPA
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!

Postby UWO-BADGPA » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:12 pm

Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 :lol:

Purchaser of home brought action against vendor and broker for rescission and damages. The Supreme Court, New York County, Lehner, J., dismissed, and purchaser appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Rubin, J., held that: (1) vendor was estopped to deny existence of poltergeists on the premises, so that house was haunted as a matter of law; (2) equitable remedy of rescission was available; (3) vendor who had undertaken to inform the public at large about the existence of poltergeists had a duty to inform purchaser; (4) haunting is not a condition which can and should be ascertained by reasonable inspection of the premises; but (5) there was no cause of action against the broker.

What a perfect case to read for Halloween!!!!
I'm a nerd I know . . . . lol


did you look up the case? lol, reserve judgment for after finals!


Havent posted in a while but I felt I needed to chime in. WTF, this is the worst douchebaggery I have seen here. I cant describe how gay this post was - its complicated. U Phoenix PT'er with a B on a midterm type douche bag.

User avatar
LAWYER2
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!

Postby LAWYER2 » Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:11 pm

UWO-BADGPA wrote:
Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 :lol:

Purchaser of home brought action against vendor and broker for rescission and damages. The Supreme Court, New York County, Lehner, J., dismissed, and purchaser appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Rubin, J., held that: (1) vendor was estopped to deny existence of poltergeists on the premises, so that house was haunted as a matter of law; (2) equitable remedy of rescission was available; (3) vendor who had undertaken to inform the public at large about the existence of poltergeists had a duty to inform purchaser; (4) haunting is not a condition which can and should be ascertained by reasonable inspection of the premises; but (5) there was no cause of action against the broker.

What a perfect case to read for Halloween!!!!
I'm a nerd I know . . . . lol


did you look up the case? lol, reserve judgment for after finals!


Havent posted in a while but I felt I needed to chime in. WTF, this is the worst douchebaggery I have seen here. I cant describe how gay this post was - its complicated. U Phoenix PT'er with a B on a midterm type douche bag.



kick rocks you E'ffin Canadian!. If you know where I'm at then meet me in the library and tell me that to my face lol!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LandMermaid, mist4bison, no_desk and 14 guests