Sentences with phrase «negligent misrepresentation actions»

A 1996 Kansas case had a very favorable outcome for real estate practitioners, holding that they «may protect themselves from negligent misrepresentation actions by disclaiming knowledge of the property's defects and having a seller acknowledge such disclaimer.»

To succeed in a negligent misrepresentation action, the Buyer would need to show: the Agent provided her with information; the information was false; the Agent did not exercise reasonable care in obtaining information provided to the Buyer; and the Buyer justifiably relied upon this information to her detriment.

Not exact matches

Specifically, he asserted the following causes of action: «(1) counts one and two - fraudulent concealment and fraud; (2) count three - civil conspiracy; (3) counts four and five - negligence; (4) count six - negligent misrepresentation; (5) counts seven and eight - negligent hiring and retention; and (6) count nine - wrongful death and survival.

Our lawyers have defended class actions and individual cases alleging personal injury and property damage from environmental contamination or exposure to chemical products based on all types of legal theories, including negligence, fraud, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, trespass, private and public nuisance and damage claims such as «fear of cancer» and medical monitoring.

[5] At the certification motion, the Defendant conceded that the Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim «pass [ed] over the cause of action and identifiable class criteria» and accepted that there were some common issues for this claim that could be certified (Motion judge's reasons, para. 15).

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

In the recent decision of Fantl v Transamerica Life Canada («Fantl»)[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal of the Divisional Court's decision and confirmed the certification of class claims in negligent misrepresentation, noting that it was time for class actions to «deliver on their promise of access to justice» [2] when it comes to individual issues.

Successfully opposed attempt to certify proposed nationwide class action brought by franchisees against franchisor alleging claims for, among other things, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

Edison Subs, LLC — a transferee of a Edison, New Jersey Subway restaurant — brought an action in New Jersey state court against the franchisor (Doctor's Associates, Inc.), the former franchisee (Aliya Patel), and the franchisor's affiliate (Subway Real Estate Corp.), alleging breach of contract, fraud, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Willie has prosecuted and defended claims involving breach of contract, tortious interference, state and federal antitrust, common law and statutory fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, negligent misrepresentation, business disparagement, state and federal securities actions, product liability, nuisance, trespass, conversion, insurance coverage, corporate governance, breach of fiduciary duty, shareholder oppression, and qui tam.

Negligent misrepresentation is a cause of action in tort, which allows the receiver of false or misleading information to seek recourse through the courts for losses incurred as a result of that misrepresentation.

In addition to common law negligent misrepresentation claims, they make a claim based on the new statutory cause of action found at s. 138.3 of the OSA, which can only be commenced with leave of the court.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action in July 2009 based on claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and the secondary market liability provision of the Act.

As a result, subject to a successful appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada — I can't see leave being granted — the action will proceed, for now, on claims which could produce personal liability for Mr. Trump for, at least, negligent misrepresentation and perhaps fraudulent misrepresentation (see the summary in para. 159, particular items (3) and (4)-RRB-.

The causes of action included breach of contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and breach of constructive trust.

That is why, as Bob Aaron says, and as Barry Lebowe says, that there is far more trouble caused by the negative fallout from SPIS driven deals involving misrepresentations, innocent, negligent or fraudulent in nature, whether these actions reach the in - court stage, or not, than the public, nay, many lawyers realize.

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

The court found that the doctrine can be used in all negligence actions, including negligent misrepresentation allegations such as the Buyers made here.

Stephens v. Sponholz (251 A.D. 2d 1061)- purchaser's causes of action against seller for fraud and negligent misrepresentation stand; the «as is» and general merger clauses of the purchase agreement are not specific disclaimers and do not preclude a cause of action based upon fraud in the inducement of the contract; issues of fact remain as to whether seller made express fraudulent representations concerning water in the basement of the house or actively concealed the problem and whether purchaser could have discovered the defect by the exercise of reasonable diligence.