Real Estate Deal Gone Wrong: Buyer Beware!
Can the attorney be held liable for the buyer's worthless property acquisition?
a) Yes, because the attorney knowingly made false representations of fact to the buyer.
b) Yes, because the attorney implied that his opinion regarding the value of the property was a disinterested opinion.
c) No, because the attorney's statement that the buyer would be getting a lot of property for the money was a statement of opinion regarding the value of the property.
d) No, because the buyer was not a client of the attorney.
Answer:
The attorney may be held civilly liable for misleading the buyer with a false representation of the property's value, especially since he knew about the title defect. The exact outcome depends on the specifics of the laws in the jurisdiction.
Explanation: The attorney may be subject to civil liability toward the buyer. When he gave an assurance about the property's value while knowing about the title defect, he knowingly made false representations. The attorney's actions could be viewed as fraudulent misrepresentation since he knowingly concealed a material fact - the title defect - that the buyer clearly had an interest in knowing about. This doesn't mean the attorney has to disclose all known information to the buyer, but in this case, his assurance about the property value could be interpreted as a statement implying the land was a good investment. The attorney had a duty to not provide false information, especially when he knew the information would be used to make a significant financial decision. Therefore, the answer can be either (a) Yes, because the attorney knowingly made false representations of fact to the buyer or (b) Yes, because the attorney implied that his opinion regarding the value of the property was a disinterested opinion. Ultimately, it depends on the jurisdiction and specifics of the law regarding attorney liability in such matters.