Question

Patricia is selling her country home. When Paul, an interested Buyer asks her about the well in the backyard and if it works, Patricia says "Are you kidding me, watch this" As she demonstrates pouring a large amt of water out. Paul then buys the house but unexpectedly discovers that the wells stops working two weeks later. In fact, Patricia knew the well was inadequate and she had the well filled with a tanker truck while her house was being sold. A new well will cost Paul about $1000 with no guarantee of success.

Was Patricias act Fraud or innocent misrepresentation?
What remedy should Paul take?

Answer 1

This scenario involves fraudulent misrepresentation by Patricia when selling her house and misrepresenting the functionality of the well. Paul can seek legal remedies such as rescinding the contract or suing for damages.

Step-by-step explanation:

This scenario involves a legal concept known as misrepresentation. Misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement of fact to another party with the intention of inducing that party to enter into a contract. In this case, Patricia intentionally misrepresented the functionality of the well by pouring water out of it. Since she knew the well was inadequate and had it filled with a tanker truck, her actions can be considered fraudulent misrepresentation.

Given that Patricia intentionally deceived Paul, he can seek legal remedies for his losses. One possible remedy is to rescind the contract and seek restitution, which would involve returning the house to Patricia and receiving a refund of the purchase price. Alternatively, Paul could also sue for damages, seeking compensation for the cost of fixing or drilling a new well.

It is important for Paul to consult with a lawyer experienced in contract law to assess his options and determine the best course of action.