Real Estate Transaction

600 Words3 Pages
Real Estate Transaction
The words “equity does not serve the indolent” will hang Brutus even if he claims no to know the law. In the normal transaction of real estates the law of contract requires that that the buyer should disclose all information he has about the land including the interests that he has in the estates before purchase to ensure fairness in the business transaction. Brutus had been aware of the gains that come about with the land and therefore his liability to disclose information cannot be doubted, this is an aspect of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Naive too cannot escape the hangman; the expectations of a lawyer aren’t what is depicted by him. In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, the courts made a rule that if someone possesses a skill and undertakes to use that skill to assist someone a duty of care then arises in that event. In this case Naive was a lawyer and therefore he had a duty to disclose information during the transaction.
At this point Naive still has the duty of disclosure, at this stage he is even more obliged to disclose the information than before because the matter too arises to the other contracting party. If he denies disclosing the information, such a contract would just be merely based on undue influence altogether .The contract would be said to be void ab initio, because of the presence of fraudulent misrepresentation.
The presence of Attorney John Esquire would greatly impact the duty of disclosure though the aspect of undue influence would now be absent since both parties have an attorney at their representation table. The Freedom of Contract does provide for both parties to disclose as much information before the consideration i...

... middle of paper ...

...h an accident. In Sullivan v. Porter, 861 A.2d 625 (2004) the courts made prerequisites for part performance: there must be a contract, the party seeking the contract partially performed the contract, and the vitiation is as a result of the other party’s mistake or misrepresentation. In this case Sui had already done part of her contractual obligations; the hurricane too was an act of God. Therefore if Sumi refuses to return Bernice’s earnest money won’t be an act against the law because indeed she had done partial portion of the contract.

Works Cited

Bar, C. ., Drobnig, U., Alpa, G., & European Commission. (2004). The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe: A comparative study. München: Sellier.
Perlman, M. (2000). Conceptual flux: Mental representation, misrepresentation, and concept change. Dordrecht [u.a.: Kluwer Academic Publishers

More about Real Estate Transaction

Open Document