Sentences with phrase «court against buyer»

Then Buyer # 1 sues his agent and takes him to RECO, explains that his agent told him that the seller would not accept the deal, and the whole mess plays out in court against Buyer 1 and his agent.

Not exact matches

As NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman leads the NHL into its latest war of revenge against Jerry Moyes for trying to recoup his losses by attempting to sell the Phoenix Coyotes to the outlaw buyer, Jim Balsillie, it is well to remember that his triumph in the courts over the now three time loser didn't change one ugly fact: the Phoenix Coyotes still lose huge sums of money every year.

Exxon this week hit back against the California lawsuits in a filing with a Texas state court pointing out none of the cities disclosed such risks to bond buyers and arguing the lawsuits were politically motivated and linked to cases brought by the states of New York and Massachusetts.

Granted, a case could be made for fraudulent conveyance, but try proving that in the courts against the private buyers» legal team.

I would advise clients to always obtain their own inspection report as I believe there was an Ontario court ruling some years ago that a buyer can not rely on an inspection report prepared for a seller and therefore there is no recourse against the inspector and no fiduciary duty required from the sellers inspector.

The buyers may lose their deposit, which hurts, but not as much as a court ruling against them.

Represents Malagasy groups (commodities traders) in their disputes against buyers, brought before French and international arbitration courts

Insight A court recent ruled that a tolling agreement, when entered into between companies that intended to merge, violated the Hart - Scott - Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, leading to the imposition of significant financial penalties against the buyer, according to Hogan Lovells.

The trial court decided that the defects were disclosed to the buyer and dismissed his case against the brokers.

The Sellers settled their lawsuit with the Buyers, and the trial court dismissed the allegations against the Brokerage and Hopkins.

The court ruled that the Broker's confidentiality policy was contrary to the purpose of the property disclosure law and that the Buyer had sufficiently alleged a cause of action against the Broker for its failure to disclose the information from the earlier transaction.

The Georgia appellate court ruled that a fraudulent inspection report could serve as the basis for a lawsuit by the buyers against their agent, the seller, and inspector.

First, exclusive buyer agency agreements are contracts that are enforceable in a court just as listing agreements are enforceable against sellers.

You seem to portray sellers as demonic info vacs that will use any and all statements the buyers say against them in a court of law (jokingly).

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.

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.

I would advise clients to always obtain their own inspection report as I believe there was an Ontario court ruling some years ago that a buyer can not rely on an inspection report prepared for a seller and therefore there is no recourse against the inspector and no fiduciary duty required from the sellers inspector.

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.

An Ohio appellate court has considered whether a buyers» lawsuit against a listing broker over flooding on the property could proceed when then property was sold «as - is» and the buyers knew of the potential for flooding on the property.

The district court noted that the FHA prohibits: (1) discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling; or (2) discrimination against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling — because of a handicap of the buyer or renter, or a person residing or intending to reside in that dwelling.

Court of Appeals of Georgia addressed a commission dispute by a broker against the buyer and seller of property.

In Hagans v. Woodruff, the Court of Appeals of Texas addressed a buyer's allegations of negligent misrepresentation and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act (DPTA) against a broker.

The court affirmed the dismissal of all defendants except the buyer, against whom it affirmed the finding of fraud and award of $ 171,000 actual damages and $ 150,000 punitive damages.

In Mahler v. Keenan Real Estate, Inc., the Supreme Court of Kansas addressed allegations of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation by a buyer against a vendor and a brokerage firm.

A Georgia court has considered a buyer's lawsuit against the seller and the listing broker over the misidentification of a property in a listing.

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

Next, the court considered the allegations against the Buyer's Representative.

Therefore, the court sent the negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty allegations against the Buyer's Representative back to the trial court for consideration by a jury.

Two courts have considered whether a lawsuit can be brought against a buyer's representative who is compensated by a seller's broker alleging violations of the federal Residential Lead - Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 («Act»).

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

In response to a certified question propounded by a federal court, Montana's highest court considers whether the state's license laws allow a buyer's representative to represent clients who are bidding against each other for the same property.

A New York appellate court has considered a buyer's representative's lawsuit against the seller of a property and the listing broker over the seller's cancelation of the purchase transaction, costing the buyer's representative a commission.

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

A Maine federal court has considered whether a seller of a vacation home can successfully allege fraud against a broker when the only remedy sought by the seller was rescission of the purchase agreement between a buyer and seller.

However, the court found that the Buyer's breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation allegations against the Buyer's Representative should have been considered by a jury, and so sent those allegations back to the jury.

Prior to severing, the court dismissed some of the Buyers» allegations, and so the only remaining allegations against the Brokerage were antitrust allegations (federal and state) and violations of the state's consumer protection act.

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

Prior to dismissing the class action lawsuit, the trial court severed Curtis and Gwendolyn Blough's («Buyers») lawsuit against the Brokerage and allowed it to proceed as a stand - alone lawsuit.

An Illinois court has considered whether a brokerage could bring a lawsuit for fraud and conspiracy against lender and buyers for failed transactions.

A Colorado appellate court has reversed a trial court's award of defense costs to a real estate brokerage to be paid by brokerage's seller client, arising from a buyer's lawsuit against both the seller and the brokerage.

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).

An Illinois appellate court has considered whether buyers» lawsuit against a listing broker for incorrectly identifying a property's school district could proceed.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts addressed allegations by buyers against a vendor bank for fraud and violations of the business practices act.

In Mouning v. Carswell, the Superior Court of Connecticut addressed allegations of fraud, negligence, and breach of contract by a buyer against a broker.

In a case previously summarized in The Letter of the Law, a federal court has considered whether a buyer's allegations could proceed against a listing broker for negligent misrepresentation when the listing broker failed to disclose the presence of lead paint on the property.

A Georgia appellate court has considered a buyer's lawsuit against her real estate representative and the listing broker concerning their alleged failure to help her discover a gas leak in the house she purchased.

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).

The court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud allegations against the Buyer's Representative because the Buyer had not properly plead those allegations.

A South Carolina court has considered whether a seller's failure to provide a completed disclosure form to the buyer gave the buyer a cause of action against the seller and the real estate brokers.