blogger21 wrote:RickSanchez wrote:sittin_pretty wrote:Got'eem wrote:On essay 2, did S have knowledge that a murder occurred in the condo? I thought he had no knowledge and was only the owner right after the murder took place. If there is no knowledge, then there cant be COA for fraud, right?
The murder was a rabbit hole fact. The real fraud issue was knowing about the parking space going away.
No, parking space was not material fact. $50 a month is not material. 20% decrease in value is.
Are you saying there was no duty to disclose the murder? Honest question. I was trying to look up the answer, but generally I don't think there is a duty at CL. She didn't ask him if there was a murder before she bought right? (sorry to beat a dead horse..I'm intrigued).
I understand there is the usual rule of caveat emptor, but some courts found that well selling stigmatized properties you have to disclose. California, for example, you and your real estate agent have an obligation to disclose murders. Even outside of that, Steve sold the property at $200,000 knowing that it was only worth $160,000 BECAUSE of the murders. You could argue it's not material, but you could argue it's material as well: either way you could write a good essay as long as you mention it in the essay and analyze them.