Final answer:
An attorney would likely advise Baker that Able's actions of reselling the property to Charlie are permitted unless a contract clause was breached.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the given scenario, if Baker consults a real estate attorney regarding Able's actions, the attorney is likely to convey that Able's actions, while potentially opportunistic, may not be unlawful if Able fulfilled all his contractual obligations with Baker before selling the property to Charlie. The key factor is whether Able acted within the bounds of the existing contract.
If Able legitimately purchased the property from Baker and subsequently sold it to Charlie, he would generally be within his legal rights to do so. Real estate transactions often involve the principle of "caveat emptor," or "buyer beware," and unless there are explicit contractual provisions restricting resale or requiring profit-sharing, Able is generally free to sell the property at any price he deems appropriate.
The real estate attorney might counsel Baker to carefully review the terms of the initial sale agreement with Able. If there are no clauses preventing a quick resale or stipulating profit-sharing, Baker may not have a strong legal basis for pursuing action against Able. Contracts that do not include such restrictions typically allow the buyer, once they legally acquire the property, to dispose of it as they see fit.
In conclusion, the real estate attorney would likely advise Baker that Able's actions may not be unlawful unless specific contractual clauses were violated. Understanding the terms of the initial agreement is crucial in determining whether Baker has legal grounds for taking action against Able for selling the property to Charlie at a higher price.