Question

Nico owns a building that he believes is worth $250,000. Laura knows that Nico's building has a historical significance because Elvis slept there, and that makes the building much more valuable, but she only offers Nico $265,000 for it. Nico is suspicious of Laura and asks her why she wants to buy the place. She says that she's always liked the building. Nico then asks Laura if she's aware of some information that makes the building worth more than he thinks, and Laura says nothing. Laura's lack of a response to Nico's question was a misrepresentation of fact requisite for fraud.

Answer 1

The question deals with a potential case of misrepresentation where a buyer conceals information about a property's value from the seller. This can lead to a claim of fraud in contract law.

Step-by-step explanation:

The scenario described presents an issue where Laura knows about the historical significance that increases the value of Nico's building due to its association with Elvis. Despite Nico's suspicion and direct questioning, Laura refrains from disclosing this crucial information, which could amount to a misrepresentation of fact in the context of contract law. Misrepresentation in such a case could potentially lead to a claim of fraud if it is established that Laura intentionally concealed this fact to induce Nico into selling the property at a lower value than its actual worth.