A buyer signed a purchase agreement that contained the words, "Buyer to accept property in 'as is' condition." There were defects in the electrical system that the seller knew of but that would not be apparent to an ordinary person; the broker did not disclose these defects. If the buyer sued the broker for fraud:
A. the buyer would prevail, since the duty to disclose latent defects is not affected by an "as is" clause
B. the buyer would prevail, since "as is" only refers to obvious defects
C. the broker would prevail, since the "as is" clause limits his liability
D. the broker would prevail, despite the fact that the "as is" clause does not limit his liability, because the buyer did not have the electrical system inspected by an expert
Answer: A. the buyer would prevail, since the duty to disclose latent defects is not affected by an "as is" clause
You might also like to view...
System handover, or knowledge transfer is the major activity of the operation stage of the ERP life cycle
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Some say that even when employers use reasonable care by taking steps to minimize liability for sexual harassment, minimize, or eliminate the occurrence of sexual harassment, and take immediate action once it knows of harassing conduct,
it still may not be enough. Why might this be the case? What will be an ideal response?