In this case, a man named John Pealin owns a house in Basilla which is known for being haunted due to a horrible family massacre done by the father. John, his family, and many more people of the town know about the haunted house. All residents of Basilla know about the horrible massacre that occurred in Jon’s house decades ago. John decides to sell the house. Baron Obaka lives five hundred miles from Basilla and is interested in the property due to his profession. He is a basketball coach who holds camps for basketball players. He did a survey and more players would attend his camp at his home in Basilla due to less distraction near home. Baron decides to view the place, but seemed to be under the influence when doing the walkthrough. John …show more content…
“A legal duty to disclose arises in three situations. The first instance is where a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties to the transaction. The second situation giving rise to a duty to disclose is where the parties are negotiating at arm's length and one party takes affirmative steps to conceal materials facts from the other. The final instance where a party negotiating at arm's length has a duty to disclose is where one party has knowledge of a latent defect in the subject matter of the negotiations of which the other party is ignorant and which it is unable to discover through reasonable diligence. Harton v. Harton, 81 N.C. App. 295, 344 S.E.2d 117 (1986).” “In order for silence or an omission by the defendants to be actionable fraud, it must relate to a material matter known by the defendants which they had a legal duty to communicate to plaintiff, "whether that duty arose from a relation of trust, from confidence, inequality of condition or knowledge, or other attendant circumstances. Setzer v. Old Republic Life Ins. Co., 257 N.C. 396, 399, 126 S.E.2d 135, 137 (1962)).” Baron wasn’t aware of the murder/ suicide in the house decades ago which was led to believe this is where the ghosts are from prior to buying the house. John failed to tell Baron this situation, which makes me believe that John didn’t think he would sell the house if he told Baron. Since …show more content…
“The courts hold in numerous cases that a transferee who uses fraud to obtain the transfer of property is a constructive trustee. Such situations might involve an affirmative assertion of the truth of a material fact or concealment of the existence of a material fact when there was a duty to speak. The state of the defendant's mind is a material fact and might be a basis for a constructive trust—such as when the defendant promises to use the property for certain purposes beneficial to the plaintiff but intends at the time of the transfer to retain it for himself or herself. The defrauded party can also proceed on the theory of setting aside the transfer, which is substantially equivalent to obtaining a constructive trust, or the defrauded party can sue for damages. (dictionary, 2006)” John prevented the information from being known by not telling Baron any important information on the house. John needs to focus on the agreement terms of the contract. It was clearly mentioned in agreement that no representation, no damage coverage after the sale and agreement. This is a legal agreement which is legally obliged. His defense will only be successful on the ground of clear statement in agreement and under no