condition of the property before purchase. However, in this case, the plaintiff carried the day because the vendor is accountable for notifying the purchaser of any dangers that would make the buyer decline to buy the assets were threats predictable. Although the vendor is accountable for alerting the purchaser of such threats, floods pose a bizarre threat since they happen without caution. In the Acton v. Wallace Judge Alfred Baker refused to grant a recision since they felt that the caveat emptor law subsists to safeguard sellers from unidentified situations that lead to biased business practices. This law is applicable in societies that are capitalistic whereby people are anticipated to exercise judiciousness and good ruling before purchasing a property. Despite the plaintiff suffering a loss after purchase, the sell itself was conducted in good faith. The cost of getting the money back does not outweigh the effect of erosion. While it is difficult to measure the impact of erosion in quantitative terms, we must acknowledge that the value of our future to figure into our decisions. To cite Baker v. Geneusa and Severson v. Louis once more, the caveat emptor rule failed to apply because hazards such as floods or sinkholes were only problematic once after a long period and one could not discern the problem during the inspection of the property before purchasing.
LEGAL MEMO 6 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Sutterland’s petition to resell the camp house located at the eroded cliff should be granted. Dated: -------------------- COMPANY By----------------------- Name Attorney for the plaintiff Larry Sutterland
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 6 pages?
- Spring '16
- Law, Larry Sutterland, Peiter Bjork, CAMP HOUSE