Question

-Defenses to Genuine Assent David and Karen Wilson are in the market for a new home. After looking for months, they finally historic Victorian home that offers both character and comfort. The home needs some updating. but most of the settle on a work seems to be cosmetic so they set aside a conservative budget for the renovations. The inspections go well, except for some minor findings that the seller quickly offers to fix in order for the sale to go through they close on the property, they hire a contractor to begin the renovation work. During the demolition process their contractor finds that behind a seemingly "'newer" wall there is mold that developed from a leak on the roof near the chimney. According to the contractor, it seems like there was evidence of trying to "patch" the lealk unsuccessfully and putting new dry wall to disguise the damage. The roof repair and mold removal will add another $4,000 to the already tight renovation budget. In addition, the day after they close on their home, the city passed a new ordinance requiring historic home renovations to undergo review and approval by an architect specializing in historic preservation. Prior to the closing, David asked the realtor if there were any limitations to renovations on historic homes in the area. The realtor responded: "not at the moment." The Wilson's realtor is part of the city board that approved the new ordinance. The cost of hiring an architect to review and approve their plans will significantly add to their budget and time. The Wilsons feel like they were deceived by the seller and their realtor. Based on the facts of this case, can the Wilson's recover from the seller and/or realtor? Are there any exceptions? Explain your answer. Answer the prompt and respond to at least two of your peers' posts. You must make an initial post before you are able to view the posts of your peers. To view the discussion board rubric, click the gear icon in the upper right corner and select "Show Rubric.

Answer 1

The Wilsons may be able to seek legal recovery due to potential misrepresentation and non-disclosure of material facts regarding the property's condition and upcoming regulations which could invalidate their genuine assent.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Wilsons' case involves issues of genuine assent, non-disclosure, and real estate practices. The undisclosed mold issue and the passage of a new ordinance shortly after closing could potentially constitute a basis for legal recovery if the sellers or the realtor were aware of these issues and failed to disclose them. The fact that the realtor is part of the city board that approved the ordinance and the evidence of the patchy roof repair could indicate misrepresentation or fraud, thereby undermining the genuine assent required for a valid contract. Since real estate sales often involve an implied warranty of habitability and requirements for disclosure of material defects, the Wilsons might have legal grounds to seek remedy from the seller for the mold, and from the realtor for misinforming them about potential renovation limitations.