Sentences with phrase «duty against the buyer»

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.

Not exact matches

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.

From what you wrote above «if there is a listing out there offering $ 500 for example I will not be showing it to a buyer» this is immoral, against your duties as a buyer's agent, and potentially a breach of your contract (assuming one was in place) with the buyer's that you represent.

They then brought a lawsuit against the Buyer's Representative and the Brokerage, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.

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.

When the Buyer later discovered that the Property was significantly less than 15,000 square feet, he filed a lawsuit against the Brokerage and the Listing Broker alleging misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

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 brought a lawsuit against the listing broker («Listing Broker»), alleging that they had a duty to disclose that the property had not been cleaned up.

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.

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.

He filed a lawsuit against the former owner, the Listing Broker, and the Buyer's Representative alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation against all the parties, and breach of fiduciary duty allegations against the Buyer's Representative.

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.

185 DOS 05 DOS v. Britt - disclosure of conditions affecting the value or desirability of listed premises; DOS fails its burden of proof; res judicata; judgment rendered in civil court between buyer and seller is not controlling in administrative proceeding against licensee where DOS and licensee were not parties in the civil suit and professional conduct of the licensee was not litigated; duty of disclosure to a buyer by a seller's agent is derivative; seller's agent must make the same disclosure to a buyer that the law requires a seller to make; disclosure by seller's agent to buyer's agent of the condition of the property as known by seller's agent was timely, proper and essentially a disclosure to buyer of that information; DOS has failed to prove by substantial evidence its allegation that basement flooding was a common occurrence or that broker was fully aware that homes in the neighborhood where the property is located encountered frequent flooding; complaint dismissed

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

Florida title insurance lawyers understand the duties and liabilities that come with title insurance coverage, and have an ethical obligation to assist buyers and sellers with making sure that the closing proceeds with as much protection as possible against future title challenges (most Florida real estate lawyers perform these services, along with closing the transaction, at no more expense than what a title company will charge to close the transaction).

The appellate court ruled against the buyers» contention that the rep had failed to meet the obligations for fiduciary duty listed in the agency disclosure form they had signed.