Five years ago, Sally acquired Blackacre, which had been improved with a 15-year-old residential dwelling. Recently, Sally advertised the property for sale. There were several defects in the house that were not readily discoverable by a reasonable inspection, including a leaky basement, an inadequate water supply, and a roof that was improperly installed. Paul responded to Sally's advertisement, and after viewing the property, decided to buy it. Paul did not ask any specific questions about the condition of the dwelling. Sally did not point out the defects to Paul. After the closing Paul took possession and discovered the defects. Paul had them repaired, and demanded that Sally reimburse him for the cost of the repairs. Sally refused and Paul brought an appropriate action against Sally for damages. If Paul wins, it will be because

a-Sally had a duty to disclose known defects that are not readily discoverable by a reasonable inspection.

b- Sally was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in failing to warn Paul to seek the assistance of a professional residential housing inspector prior to purchase.

c- Sally failed to provide marketable title, the default standard in contracts for the sale of real property.

d- Sally's actions are covered under the doctrine of estoppel by deed.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The detailed answer for the above question is provided below The best answer would be a Sally had a ... View the full answer