Sentences with phrase «claim against the buyer»

Here, the seller may have not only a breach of contract claim against the buyer but also a complaint about the broker with the licensing board (as well as a legal claim against the broker).

Where the deposit money is not replaced, the seller must be fully advised of the situation and advised to obtain legal advice as to whether or not the contract is still binding and whether or not the seller has a claim against the buyer.

Not exact matches

Without a claim against future profits, and because the tokens on offer have no established exchange value, a token buyer's gain comes solely from his or her ability to enjoy the goods and services that the platform promises to make available.

Thiel, who bid for Gawker's assets on Jan. 10, also agreed to release claims against an eventual buyer and authors of articles on the website, as well as not fund new litigation against Gawker over its archives.

Special Warranty Deed A deed that protects a property buyer from any claims against the title that arose during the seller's possession.

General Warranty Deed A deed that protects the buyer from claims against the title after a sale.

Title insurance protects the lender from claims against the house and protects the buyer from past contractors making claims against the property.

The only way to protect yourself against these bogus claims is to get a valid proof of delivery — to qualify for eBay's seller protection, you need «online documentation from a postal company» that has «delivered» status, the date of delivery and the buyer's address.

With respect to a consumer credit sale, an assignee of the rights of the seller is subject to all claims and defenses of the buyer against the seller arising out of the sale, notwithstanding an agreement to the contrary, but the assignee's liability under this section may not exceed the amount owing to the assignee at the time the claim or defense is asserted against the assignee.

Rights of the buyer under this section can only be asserted as a matter of defense to or setoff against a claim by the assignee.

In a consumer credit sale, the seller may not take as evidence of the obligation of the buyer, a negotiable instrument other than (1) a check; or (2) a promise or order containing a statement, required by applicable statutory or administrative law, to the effect that the rights of a holder or transferee are subject to claims or defenses that the issuer could assert against the original payee.

Claim Against Earthquakes Insurance Residence or business owners that are located in areas that are prone to Earthquakes are the typical buyers of earthquake insurance.

In a warranty deed, seller represents that he owns the property and has the right to sell the property to the buyer and that no liens or claims are against the property except those that are expressed on the face of the deed.

In similar work, the team defended ThyssenKrupp GfT Gleistechnik against damage claims brought by Deutsche Bahn together with regional transport companies and superstructure material buyers.

Where a seller makes representations or warranties that the property does not contain those defects, the buyer may have a claim against the seller for any losses or damages resulting from the defect.

As part of their due diligence process, buyers of businesses often focus heavily on title and ownership issues as well as pending claims against the business.

LMAA Arbitration No. 4 — sole counsel for successful claimant buyers against Chinese yard in US$ 30m + claims under shipbuilding contracts for the construction of two chemical tankers.

In these days of bending over backwards to save the buyer from «caveat emptor» and to indemnify themselves against claims, the myriad of professional inspectors descending on an unsuspecting house sale are sometimes, to use a technical phrase, «screwing up the deal» by offering their opinion.

If buyer clients believe that they may have a claim against a builder under a statutory, express, or implied warranty, there are several important steps they should take: Read the warranty, if there is one, provided by the builder; call the builder and try to resolve the dispute; provide written notice to the builder of the defect in the form of a letter; give the builder a reasonable amount of time to resolve the problem; seek legal advice if the dispute can not be resolved; and contact the state consumer protection agency or state attorney general's office.

What the buyers should not do is hire a professional to repair the alleged defect and then file a claim against the builder for the expenses incurred.

The buyer also asserted a claim against the title company for failing to tell him title was encumbered.

Also, the real estate representative, who served as representative for both buyers and seller, sent a statement to the purchasers indicating that they were waiving any potential claims regarding structural defects against the listing agency, selling representative, and owner of the property.

Once the buyer and seller sign, without a change, the Agent has not released the buyer or seller and until the Agent does sign, a claim by the Agent could be made against the buyer or seller, or the agents could battle each other.

The trial court had found that while the Appraiser and Lender may have acted with conscious disregard of the false statement made to the buyers, there was no evidence that they had actual knowledge of the Beeman's fraud and so the trial court did not submit the punitive damage claims against the Appraiser and the Lender to the jury.

Subsequently, the seller filed a lawsuit against Maki claiming, among other things, that the broker had breached fiduciary duty to the seller by making false representations regarding the buyers» ability to obtain financing and by misrepresenting the operation and effect of the home inspection contingency.

The sellers claimed fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the buyer and the buyer's representative, arguing that the buyer did not make a good faith effort to secure financing, and that the buyer's representative failed to notify the lender that the sellers had agreed to lower the purchase price.

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin addressed several claims against a seller's broker stemming from the buyer's subsequent discovery of contamination from a previously - leaking underground storage tank.

In LA & N Interests, Inc. v. Fish, the Court of Appeals of Texas addressed claims of breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and conversion by a buyer's brokerage and its sales associate against a buyer and a competitor brokerage.

The Buyer brought a lawsuit against the Developer, claiming that the Developer misrepresented the Neighbor's disruptive behavior and alleged negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud allegations, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In Newell v. Krause, the Supreme Court of Kansas addressed a broker's claims of fraud against a buyer, a seller, and related corporations.

In the purchase contract, the Buyer agreed to indemnify the Bank against any claims made by the Broker.

A buyer brought a claim for negligence against the appraiser and the court dismissed because buyer had accurate information prior to closing.

After the court dismissed the claims against the appraiser and the broker, the buyer appealed those rulings.

South Dakota court rules that buyer's claims against representative over information about utilities was not barred by the statute of limitations.

The buyer brought suit against the seller, claiming fraud and failure to comply with the state's disclosure statute.

Thus, no misrepresentations were made by the Salesperson and so the court ruled in favor of the Salesperson and Brokerage (and also dismissed the cross-claim made against the Buyer's Representative, as those claims no longer had any basis).

Keys to the Lake Lodging Co., LLC («Buyer's Representative») filed a notice of broker's lien right against those units and mailed a copy to the Seller, claiming a commission from those transactions.

In 2001, the Buyer filed a lawsuit against the Sellers and the Brokerage, claiming that they had misrepresented and concealed material facts about the flooding problem on the property.

Therefore, the court ruled that the only commission claim that the Buyer's Representative could bring would be a claim against the listing broker, not the Seller, and so dismissed the lawsuit against the Seller.

In Binette v. Dyer Library Association, the Supreme Court of Maine addressed a buyer's claims against the seller and real estate agent and agency for negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUPTA) for failure to disclose the existence of an underground storage tank (UST).

When Letsos subsequently learned of Brusha's resale to Hernandez, he filed a complaint against Brusha and New West, claiming that both had breached their fiduciary duties to him by not disclosing that Brusha had found a buyer.

She claimed the buyer had violated the automatic stay protection of bankruptcy by filing a complaint against her.

So far, FinCEN has found that 30 percent of the buyers behind these transactions had previous reports os suspicious activity filed against them for issues such as unusual cash withdrawals, suspected corruption ties in foreign countries, and other claims.

Therefore, to avoid the possibility for a claim against you in the future, it may be advisable for you to err on the side of caution and to disclose the fact of a murder or suicide in your home to a serious or likely buyer.

Lubeck Realty v. Flintkote Company (170 A.D. 2d 800) broker representing buyers, fails to prove commission claim against seller, as well as existence of an agreement as to essentials of the transaction.

Concluding Buyer's petition states a claim for failure to disclose known defects against Broker, we reverse the order granting its dismissal motion.

¶ 1 After purchasing a home in Enid, Oklahoma, Plaintiff Jason Stauff (Buyer) filed an action alleging violations of Oklahoma's Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (Disclosure Act) and negligence against the sellers, real estate broker, and home inspectors.1 Buyer appeals a single trial court order granting 1) summary judgment in favor of Defendants Kimberly Bartnick and her husband, Roy Bartnick (collectively the Bartnicks or Sellers) and also 2) the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 2012 (B)(6) filed by Defendant Paramount Homes Real Estate Co. (Broker or Paramount).

Venezia v. Coldwell Banker Sammis Realty (270 A.D. 2d 480)- buyer's action against seller for fraud for failing to disclose toxic contamination of untapped ground water beneath the property and surrounding area dismissed; cause of action against brokers severed; buyer's claim of fraud against seller was extinguished upon closing as a result of specific merger clause in contract of sale; moreover, buyer's failed to allege that seller made any representation about the condition of the land's subsurface or groundwater and did not allege that seller engaged in concealment or otherwise deceitful conduct designed to prevent the discovery of such contamination; seller is under no duty to speak; salesperson of one of the defendant real estate agencies represented to buyer that the house was in good condition

For example, if a buyer purchases a condo on Miami Beach, only to discover after he or she moves in that the condo's central air conditioning does not adequately cool down the property, then he or she has a warranty claim against the seller because a latent defect (a hidden defect) caused a failure of the ac unit to meet ordinary, normal standards reasonably to be expected of a condo of comparable kind and quality.

The sellers and their broker moved for summary judgment on the buyer's claims against them, and the trial court granted their motion.