LEARN MORE...

Reed V. King Edit

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Real Estate

School

California state university Northridge

Course

BLAW 481

Type

Homework

Uploaded By

Vafvqre47

Pages

Showing Page:

1/10

Case Briefs

Name

Institution

Date

Showing Page:

2/10

Reed v. King - 145 Cal. App. 3d 261, 193 Cal. Rptr. 130 (1983)

Issue

Was the homebuyer, Dorris Reed, entitled to rescission of a contract on reasons that the

defendant Robert King failed to reveal information about the murder that happened in the

building?

Answer

Yes.

Rule

The judgment was reversed and the ruling was in favour of Reed. It is the responsibility and

duty of a seller of real property to reveal; where the seller is aware of facts materially influencing

the desirability or value of the property which are accessible or known to him and is also

informed that the facts are not known to, or within the reach of the buyer’s diligent observation

an attention, the seller is required to disclose them to the buyer (Reed v. King, 1983). Let the

buyer beware or rather caveat emptor, has minimum or no application to California real estate

transactions.

Reed is seeking to declare a cause of action sounding in contract which can be rescission. Based

on the rules, her accusations must disclose fraud. Based on Civ. Code, §§ 1571-1573, 1689,

1709-1710.) [3] Some of the elements of fraud that might have been disclosed in Reed’s

accusations include: a concealment or false representation of a material fact or in certain

situations opinion susceptible of knowledge; formed without adequate knowledge on the subject

to guarantee a representation or made with the information of its falsity; with the intention of

Showing Page:

3/10

End of Preview - Want to read all 10 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1 Case Briefs Name Institution Date 2 Reed v. King - 145 Cal. App. 3d 261, 193 Cal. Rptr. 130 (1983) Issue Was the homebuyer, Dorris Reed, entitled to rescission of a contract on reasons that the defendant Robert King failed to reveal information about the murder that happened in the building? Answer Yes. Rule The judgment was reversed and the ruling was in favour of Reed. It is the responsibility and duty of a seller of real property to reveal; where the seller is aware of facts materially influencing the desirability or value of the property which are accessible or known to him and is also informed that the facts are not known to, or within the reach of the buyer’s diligent observation an attention, the seller is required to disclose them to the buyer (Reed v. King, 1983). Let the buyer beware or rather caveat emptor, has minimum or no application to California real estate transactions. Reed is seeking to declare a cause of action sounding in contract which can be rescission. Based on the rules, her accusations must disclose fraud. Based on Civ. Code, §§ 1571-1573, 1689, 1709-1710.) [3] Some of the elements of fraud that might have been disclosed in Reed’s accusations include: a concealment or false representation of a material fact or in certain situations opinion susceptible of knowledge; formed without adequate knowledge on the subject to guarantee a representation or made with the information of its falsity; with the intention of 3 inducing the individual ...
Purchase document to see full attachment

Tags: words of conveyance interest conveyed signature of grantor