Question
Question 1: Is there some significance to the fact that King told the neighbors not to disclose the murders to the new purchaser?
Question 2: How do you think Reed will be able to prove the market value of the house at the time the purchase was $65,000?
Question 3: If Reed wasn't comfortable living in the house because of the murders, should she be able to rescind the purchase by giving the title back and getting her $76,000 back? Would you feel comfortable living in this house?
CONSENT AND PERFORMANCE lso found discloseable defects with regard to houses being sold that were not ted. Does the fact that a murder occurred in the house being sold constitute a ory character previously lived there? The courts have confronted some of fourn The courts have nd rela or What if an unsavory previously lived there? The courts h structural ions in deciding what should be disclosed. For example, in the case of Reed v. King, et al., these urt exercises its judicial flexibility the d v. King, et al. Ree 45 Cal.App.3d FACTS 3d 261, 193 Cal.Rptr. 130 (3rd Dist. 1983) only to him and also knows that such facts are not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer (Lingsch v. Savage, supra, 213 Cal.App.2d at p 735, 29 Cal.Rptr. 201.) Reed purchased a house from Robert King King nor his real estate agents told Reed Neither a woman and her four children were murdered the house ten years earlier. King and his agents materilly affected the market value of the house This broad statement of duty has led one kne w about the murders and knew the event listed it for sale. They represented to commentator to conclude: The ancient maxim Reed the premises were in good condition and of caveat emptor ('let the buyer beware') has for an elderly lady living alone. After Reed little or no application to California real estate neighbors informed her that no one transactions." Whether information "is of sufficient interested in purchasing the house because materiality to affect the value or desirability of the murders. Prior to this, King had asked the property depends on the facts of the particular eighbors not to inform Reed of the murders. Reed case." paid $76,000 for the house and contends that it The murder of innocents is highly unusual in its potential for so disturbing buyers they may be rth $65,000 because of its past. Reed sued rescind the contract for sale and for damages Superior Court, Nevada County, sustained a emurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did unable to reside in a home where it has occurred This fact may foreseeably deprive a buyer of such a common occurrence that buyers should be charged with anticipating and discovering this disquieting possibility. Accordingly, the fact is not ot state a cause of action. Reed appealed DECISION: BLEASE, Associate Justice ceal sensibly be imposed upon the buyer Reed alleges the fact of the murders has a s a term of art, which includes one for which a duty of inquiry and discovery can sclose osure when a party has a duty dleclose "weller of real property has a duty se "where the seller knows of facts quantifiable effect on the market value of the premises. We cannot say this allegation is erfecting the value or desirability of inherently wrong pro perty which are known or accessible
Explanation / Answer
If I was in her case, I would also have done the same, as the way King hid the facts, was unethical and I would not be completely satisfied living in such a house.
