The case itself and the questions are clearer than they were in Unit 2. Just to be sure, each question is reposted here, in italics, along with notes that should help clarify what is being asked. 1) Brief the case. The case is Case 11.2, Reed v. King, on pp. 251-252. 2) What are the public policy concerns included in the case regarding disclosure versus non-disclosure? To what degree was Reed responsible for investigating conditions that might have affected the value of the house? These are really two, very separate, questions. In the first, identify and describe the two primary public policy concerns and explain how they conflict with each other. In the second question, don’t focus of Reed specifically. Start with the idea of caveat emptor and discuss the degree to which that should be applied in the purchase of real estate. 3) Using the Internet, research Tennessee’s (or the state in which you live) law on disclosure of defects. That sounds straightforward enough. Report the results of your research along with citations and references as needed. Do be careful to choose reliable sources on the internet. Cornell University recently updated their guidance on choosing websites for research. I’ll evaluate the websites using the five criteria they have posted under the “Putting it All Together” tab: http://guides.library.cornell.edu/evaluating_Web_pages 4) Assume that you are the owner of a piece of real estate where a particularly gruesome murder occurred. From both a legal and ethical perspective, discuss whether you would disclose this fact to potential buyers. Let’s change this from a discussion of whether you woulddisclose the fact to a discussion of whether you should disclose it. Separate the legal and ethical perspectives into separate sections and clearly identify each.
Categories: