Page 1 of 1
Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:22 pm
by LAWYER2
Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672
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
Re: Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:41 am
by capitalacq
LAWYER2 wrote:Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672
What a perfect case to read for Halloween!!!!
I'm a nerd I know . . . . lol
i feel so bad for you
Re: Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:54 pm
by LAWYER2
capitalacq wrote:LAWYER2 wrote:Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672
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!
Re: Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:12 pm
by UWO-BADGPA
Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672
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.
Re: Stambovsky v. Ackley oh my!
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:11 pm
by LAWYER2
UWO-BADGPA wrote:Stambovsky v. Ackley 572 N.Y.S.2d 672
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!