Sentences with phrase «for negligent misrepresentation»

While it is certainly not a typical case, there might be a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

The court determined that real estate professionals can be liable for negligent misrepresentation if they fail to exercise reasonable care in making representations to clients.

A federal appellate court has considered whether an appraiser could be sued for negligent misrepresentation by the purchaser of a mortgage.

After closing, the purchasers experienced a flood in the basement, found out about the earlier flood and sued the vendors for damages for negligent misrepresentation.

In addition to suing the real estate entities and individuals involved in the transaction and the seller of the property, the business owners also brought suit against the appraiser for negligent misrepresentation.

Thus, the trial court affirmed the award for negligent misrepresentation.

Claims for negligent misrepresentation have become increasingly common in the pension sector.

A jury found the sellers and the broker liable for negligent misrepresentation and fraud, and the broker was also liable for breach of fiduciary duty.

The Supreme Court of Alabama has ruled on when an appraiser can be liable to third parties for a negligent misrepresentation made in his appraisal report and also whether a real estate licensee representing the seller has a duty to disclose to the buyer that the owner of the licensee's brokerage has an ownership interest in the property being sold.

In a matter filed in the District Court of Santa Fe County, New Mexico, the Plaintiff filed a claim for negligent misrepresentation arising out of an inaccurate acreage figure in a MLS book.

Private Lending's claim for negligent misrepresentation lacks the reliance required for such an action.

Damages in tort for negligent misrepresentation (i.e. promises made by the employer that were untrue, especially with respect to job security)

The other situation is one where the new employer sues the former employer for negligent misrepresentation.

A claim for negligent misrepresentation requires an incorrect statement made negligently to be relied upon by a claimant when entering into an agreement.

After a septic tank leak two years later, the buyers sued the seller, the brokerage, and the salesperson for negligent misrepresentation.

The Court first addressed the lower courts» findings that no cause of action existed against Broker for negligent misrepresentation.

The court adopted the Restatement language and held that the State of Kansas recognized a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation by a real estate agent who induced a buyer to purchase real estate.

Zoda sued the seller, Eckert, and Clark for negligent misrepresentation.

South Dakota's highest court has ruled that listing brokers in that state can be liable to purchasers for negligent misrepresentation by failing to verify the validity of information contained in listing agreements.

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.

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).

A Maryland federal district court recently considered whether a real estate appraiser could be liable to a third - party lender for negligent misrepresentations.

Second, statements of puffery such as saying that the Inspector was the «best» are not actionable for negligent misrepresentation claims.

Appraiser could be liable for negligent misrepresentation for statements regarding market value of home stated in appraisal report

[4] The Plaintiffs are suing the federal government for damages for negligent misrepresentation arising from the government's failure to advise them of the significant, identifiable risks they were facing by resigning from the public service to join Loba — risks that related to the government's assessment of the legitimacy of the Loba arrangements...

In Alabama, appraisers can be liable to third parties for negligent misrepresentation, Fisher v. Comer Plantation, Inc., 772 So.2 d 455 (Ala. 2000)

However, the court said the seller could be vicariously liable for negligent misrepresentation by the real estate agent who said the odor was sea air.

The plaintiffs» request to certify common law claims for negligent misrepresentation was also rejected.

The Court rejected Plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation.

The Superior Court allowed defendants» motion for summary judgment concluding that they owed no duty of care to Robert, an intoxicated party guest who injured himself, and that a claim for negligent misrepresentation is one that arises only in a business context, not a social setting.

Mr. Feldstein brought an action against 364 for negligent misrepresentation, alleging that 364 had lead him to believe that he would be entitled to much more than $ 1,000 per month in LTD payments if he made it through the probationary period.

Arguably, if the sites provided the information without making clear that it might not be current because records were expunged or corrected, there might be a claim for negligent misrepresentation, false light, or even defamation, but I seriously doubt that even those claims would hold up.

If a misrepresentation that is made played a factor in the employee accepting the job, then the employer may be liable for negligent misrepresentation and subsequent damages.

When sophisticated investors carefully document their relationship, it's unusual to see a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

Absent a special relationship, there is no claim for negligent misrepresentation.

Barresi v. Jones LaSalle Real Estate Services, Inc. (2018 ONSC 2579) offer to settle — favourable — substantial indemnity costs — damages for negligent misrepresentation — declaratory Justice C. Aitken

Thus, plaintiffs remaining warning - based claims — for negligent misrepresentation and fraud failed for lack of cognizable injury.

at * 16 (plaintiff «can not assert a claim for negligent misrepresentation, as he suffered no cognizable injury that was allegedly caused by the misrepresentations»), * 17 (same result for fraud).

York submits that Jaffer has attempted to frame his dispute with his professor regarding his paper assignment as grounds for a claim for negligent misrepresentation; however, that dispute is «part and parcel» of the dispute over Jaffer's grades.

In this claim as well, the court held that the motion judge did not err in dismissing the claim for negligent misrepresentation, but also varied the order to permit an amendment of the pleadings.

This therefore emphasises the general principle that to succeed in a claim for negligent misrepresentation it is necessary to show that the misrepresentation was relevant to the decision - making process and was relied upon.

The court also ruled that a claim for negligent misrepresentation had not been made as a causal link between the professor's promise to defer Jaffer's status and his damages claimed are not established in the pleadings.

Thus, Vendor was not liable for negligent misrepresentation.

Since the information in the purchase agreement was not accurate, the court ruled that the Sellers were liable for negligent misrepresentation.

The trial judge found the Scherbaks liable for negligent misrepresentation and awarded Krawchuk damages of $ 110,000 in addition to the $ 105,000 she had recovered from her title insurer.