Chandler is the owner of a home in New York City, NY. He put the home...

Transcribed Image Text:

Chandler is the owner of a home in New York City, NY. He put the home on the market for sale. His good friend Joey, an attorney, came to look at the home for the purpose of possible purchase or rental. Joey noticed a crack in the ceiling and inquired about it to Chandler. Chandler informed Joey that there had been a water leakage problem in the area but it had been fixed two years ago and had not leaked since. Joey proceeded to make a written offer on the house, which was accepted in writing by Chandler the next day. On the day prior to closing the transaction, Joey went to the residence to make a final inspection. During the inspection, Joey observed water leaking through another crack in a ceiling of the house and in the garage. On the next day, Joey informed the real estate agent that he was rescinding the contract because of the leaks. Chandler subsequently rented the property to another party. A couple of months later, Chandler filed a suit seeking a court order to make Joey purchase the house or in the alternative for money damages. Joey defended by claiming that Chandler either defrauded him or there was a mutual mistake and asked for the return of his earnest money and/or damages for fraud. The trial court found there was no evidence to find fraud on the part of Chandler because the roof had been previously fixed and the two parties had been good friends. However, the trial court held that there was a mutual mistake of fact. 1. What is the law with regard to mistakes? 2. Was Joey under a duty to hire his own inspector to inspect the roof? 3. What is the appropriate remedy when a court concludes that there has been a mutual mistake of material fact? Chandler is the owner of a home in New York City, NY. He put the home on the market for sale. His good friend Joey, an attorney, came to look at the home for the purpose of possible purchase or rental. Joey noticed a crack in the ceiling and inquired about it to Chandler. Chandler informed Joey that there had been a water leakage problem in the area but it had been fixed two years ago and had not leaked since. Joey proceeded to make a written offer on the house, which was accepted in writing by Chandler the next day. On the day prior to closing the transaction, Joey went to the residence to make a final inspection. During the inspection, Joey observed water leaking through another crack in a ceiling of the house and in the garage. On the next day, Joey informed the real estate agent that he was rescinding the contract because of the leaks. Chandler subsequently rented the property to another party. A couple of months later, Chandler filed a suit seeking a court order to make Joey purchase the house or in the alternative for money damages. Joey defended by claiming that Chandler either defrauded him or there was a mutual mistake and asked for the return of his earnest money and/or damages for fraud. The trial court found there was no evidence to find fraud on the part of Chandler because the roof had been previously fixed and the two parties had been good friends. However, the trial court held that there was a mutual mistake of fact. 1. What is the law with regard to mistakes? 2. Was Joey under a duty to hire his own inspector to inspect the roof? 3. What is the appropriate remedy when a court concludes that there has been a mutual mistake of material fact?