Modify the facts in (a) by assuming that Johnson had paid $100,000 for the property in 2013. What result?
| ♥ 0 |
Johnson tells Davis that he paid $150,000 for his farm in 2013 and that he believes it is worth twice that at the present time. Relying upon these statements, Davis buys the farm from Johnson for $225,000. Johnson did pay $150,000 for the farm in 2013, but its value has increased only slightly, and it is presently not worth $300,000. On discovering this, Davis offers to reconvey the farm to Johnson and sues for the return of his $225,000. Result? Modify the facts in (a) by assuming that Johnson had paid $100,000 for the property in 2013. What result? |
Explanation
The case does not reflect any characteristics of fraud,and Individual D would not be able to receive the damages because of the following reasons:
o The sale between Individuals D and H was done with mutual consent, and no sale agreement disclosing the fact are available in the case.
o Individual J has expressed an uncertain belief on the increase inthe value of the farm in the future. It was considered a fact by Individual D rather than considering it as a mereopinion,while the opinion was not given under aprofessional capacity.
o The Individual J's agenda of entering into the transaction has no clarity,and it cannot be said for sure ifhisintentions werefraudulent or innocent.
o The factual misrepresentation will not be considered material because a general prediction of rising the value of farm to $300,000 in future includes uncertainty, which cannot be considered right by Individual D.
o The Individual D bought the farm for $ 225,000 after relying on the statements that are based on future evaluation, which is not correct.
Verified Answer
Individual D would not be able to sueIndividual J because the transaction between both the parties cannot be considered fraudulent due to the presence of the following factors:
There is no execution of a sale contract for the transaction in the case.
The facts are opinion-based and include uncertain future predictions.
The intention of the Individual J is unclear.
The misrepresentation is not material.
The dependency of Individual D on Individual J's statement is not right.
