Question

Chelene had been a caregiver for Marta’s elderly mother, Janis, for nine years. Shortly before Janis passed away, Chelene convinced her to buy Chelene’s house for Marta. Janis died before the papers were signed, however. Four months later, Marta used her inheritance to buy Chelene’s house without having it inspected. The house was built in the 1950s, and Chelene said it was in "perfect condition." Nevertheless, one year after the purchase, the basement started leaking. Marta had the paneling removed from the basement walls and discovered that the walls were bowed inward and cracked. Marta then had a civil engineer inspect the basement walls, and he found that the cracks had been caulked and painted over before the paneling was installed. He concluded that the "wall failure" had existed "for at least thirty years" and that the basement walls were "structurally unsound." Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
1. Can Marta avoid the contract on the ground that both parties made a mistake about the condition of the house? Explain. 2. Can Marta sue Chelene for fraudulent misrepresentation? Why or why not? What element (or elements) might be lacking?. 3. Now assume that Chelene knew that the basement walls were cracked and bowed and that she hired someone to install paneling before offering to sell the house. Did she have a duty to disclose this defect to Marta? Could a court find that Chelene's silence in this situation constituted misrepresentation? Explain.

Answer 1

Answer and Explanation:

1. Marta cannot avoid the contract on the basis of a mistake of buying the house because she was supposed to inspect the house she was buying

2. Marta cannot sue Chelene for fraudulent misrepresentation because Chelene was not aware of the condition of the house. The elements in fraudulent misrepresentation are lacking : no intention to deceive, no misrepresentation of material facts

3. It would be Chelene's duty to reveal that there is defect in the house and if not the court would see this as misresprentation.

4. There was no undue influence from Chelene in selling the house and so Marta and Janis even she was alive cannot revoke the contract on this basis