WEINTRAUB V. KROBATSCH
64 N.J. 445, 317 A.2d 68 (1974)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Krobatsch (D) sought review of the decision that entered summary
judgment in favor of Weintraub (P) and directed D to pay damages to P and real estate agency.
FACTS: P owned and occupied a six-year-old English-town home which she put up for sale
through Serafin Agency, Inc. D was interested in purchasing the home, examined it and found
it suitable. P and D entered into a contract for the sale of the property for $42,500. The
contract provided that the purchasers had inspected the property and were fully satisfied
with its physical condition, that no representations had been made and that no
responsibility was assumed by the seller as to the present or future condition of the
premises. A deposit of $4,250 was sent by D to the broker to be held in escrow pending the
closing of the transaction. D requested that the seller have the house fumigated and that
was done. A fire after the signing of the contract caused damage but the purchasers
indicated readiness that there be adjustment at closing. Prior to closing, D entered the
house, then unoccupied, and as they turned the lights on they were, as described in their
petition for certification, 'astonished to see roaches literally running in all directions,
up the walls, drapes, etc.' D asserted that 'the presence of vermin in such great
quantities, particularly after the exterminator was done, rendered the house as unfit for
human habitation at this time and therefore, the contract is rescinded.' 'Cockroaches were
found to have infested the entire house.' They could be eliminated for a relatively modest
charge by two treatments with a twenty-one-day interval but that it would be necessary to
remove the carpeting 'to properly treat all the infested areas.' P sued D. Ds were claiming
fraudulent concealment or nondisclosure by P as the basis for their rescission. The court
granted P's motion and directed that Ds pay her the sum of $ 4,250. The Appellate Division
sustained but modified the Law Division's judgment to the end that the purchasers were
directed to pay not only the sum of $4,250 to P but also the sum of $2,550 to the broker. D
appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment