In Vagias v. Woodmont Properties, Vagias wanted to buy a house in Montville. He told his real estate agent that he wanted to buy there because of the school district's reputation. The agent showed him a house in a development called "Woodmont Court at Montville." Vagias asked if the house was within the jurisdictional limits of Montville. The agent and a representative for the builder, who both knew the township boundaries, assured him it was within the city limits. Vagias bought the house but was unable to enroll his son in the school district because the property was outside the city limits. Vagias sued, claiming he paid a premium for the house based on the school district's reputation. The homebuilder argued that the misrepresentations were unintentional and that Vagias did not suffer a loss in the value of his home. The court held that: 

A) Woodmont was liable because the location of the house was the basis of the bargain and the misrepresentation was affirmative, thus meeting the requirements of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. 

B) Woodmont was liable because the real estate agent showed Vagias a house that did not meet his requests. 

C) Woodmont was not liable because the misrepresentation was not intentional. 

D) Woodmont was not liable because the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to real estate.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In Vagias vsWoodmont case A broker making an affirmative misrepresentation affirming a builders statement that a house was located in a particular nei... View the full answer