Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractliability
liabilitylease

Related Cases

Dubbs v. Zak Bros. Co., 38 Ohio App. 299, 175 N.E. 626, 9 Ohio Law Abs. 501, 34 Ohio Law Rep. 147
View Case »
Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S.Ct. 958, 47 L.Ed.2d 154, 1 Media L. Rep. 1665
View Case »
Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,829
View Case »
Delahanty v. Hinckley, 564 A.2d 758, 58 USLW 2240, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,273
View Case »
Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or. 647, 871 P.2d 1006
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ollerman v. O’Rourke Co., Inc., 94 Wis.2d 17, 288 N.W.2d 95

Facts

Roy Ollerman, an inexperienced buyer, entered into a contract to purchase a vacant lot in Brown Deer, Wisconsin, for $12,600. After the purchase, he discovered an underground well on the property that was not disclosed by the seller, O'Rourke Co., Inc. Ollerman alleged that the seller, being knowledgeable in real estate, intentionally failed to disclose the well, which led him to incur additional expenses for construction and water control.

In his amended complaint, filed on July 25, 1977, the buyer alleges that on or about May 15, 1974 he entered into a written offer to purchase a vacant lot in the Village of Brown Deer, Milwaukee county, Wisconsin, for an agreed price of $12,600; that on or about June 4, 1974, the seller conveyed the lot to the buyer by a warranty deed; that the buyer purchased the lot to build a house; and that in the process of excavating for the house, a well on the property was uncapped and water was released.

Issue

Did the subdivider vendor have a duty to disclose the existence of the underground well to the non-commercial purchaser, and does the failure to disclose constitute intentional misrepresentation?

Did the subdivider vendor have a duty to disclose the existence of the underground well to the non-commercial purchaser, and does the failure to disclose constitute intentional misrepresentation?

Rule

A subdivider-vendor of a residential lot has a duty to disclose known facts that are material to the transaction and not readily discernible to the purchaser, which can lead to liability for intentional misrepresentation if the vendor fails to do so.

A subdivider-vendor of a residential lot has a duty to disclose known facts that are material to the transaction and not readily discernible to the purchaser, which can lead to liability for intentional misrepresentation if the vendor fails to do so.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the seller had a duty to disclose the existence of the well, considering the relationship between the parties and the nature of the transaction. It concluded that the seller's knowledge of the well and the buyer's lack of awareness created a reliance factor that justified imposing a duty to disclose. The court emphasized that the buyer's inexperience and the seller's expertise in real estate placed the buyer in a vulnerable position.

The court analyzed whether the seller had a duty to disclose the existence of the well, considering the relationship between the parties and the nature of the transaction. It concluded that the seller's knowledge of the well and the buyer's lack of awareness created a reliance factor that justified imposing a duty to disclose.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, allowing the buyer's complaint to proceed, as it stated a valid claim for intentional misrepresentation based on the seller's failure to disclose the well.

The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, allowing the buyer's complaint to proceed, as it stated a valid claim for intentional misrepresentation based on the seller's failure to disclose the well.

Who won?

Roy Ollerman prevailed in the case because the court found that the subdivider vendor had a duty to disclose material facts that were not readily observable to the buyer, which the vendor failed to do.

Roy Ollerman prevailed in the case because the court found that the subdivider vendor had a duty to disclose material facts that were not readily observable to the buyer, which the vendor failed to do.

You must be