 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
VSH v. Texaco: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|other_subjects=Property | |other_subjects=Property | ||
|facts=*V.S.H. Realty, Inc. = "VSH" = plaintiff = company offering to purchase a petroleum storage facility | |facts=*V.S.H. Realty, Inc. = "VSH" = plaintiff = company offering to purchase a petroleum storage facility | ||
*Texaco, Inc. = Texaco = defendant = commercial property seller | *Texaco, Inc. = [https://www.texaco.com/ Texaco] = defendant = commercial property seller | ||
*In the sales contract, Texaco stated that there were no government investigations on the facility & only 1 oil seepage | *In the sales contract, Texaco stated that there were no government investigations on the facility & only 1 oil seepage | ||
*VSH agreed to purchase the commercial real estate "[https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/as-is as is]." | *VSH agreed to purchase the commercial real estate "[https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/as-is as is]." | ||
*After the purchase, VSH noticed several areas of oil seepage on the property. | *After the purchase, VSH noticed several areas of oil seepage on the property. | ||
*VSH also learned that the [https://www.uscg.mil/ U.S. Coast Guard] was investigating the spills. | *VSH also learned that the [https://www.uscg.mil/ U.S. Coast Guard] was investigating the spills. | ||
*VSH demanded that Texaco | |||
**correct the oil spillage problem | |||
**indemnify VSH, or | |||
**reduce the purchase price. | |||
* | * | ||
|procedural_history=*VSH sued Texaco alleging [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/misrepresentation mis-representation] & deceptive business practices. | |||
*The suit was filed in Massachusetts. | |||
*VSH lost. | |||
|issues=Does 1 party that makes a potentially mis-leading partial disclosure have a duty to reveal all other material facts? | |||
|holding=Yes. If 1 party makes a potentially misleading partial disclosure, that party has a duty to reveal all other material facts. | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |||
|reasons=Judge Coffin: The presence of an "as-is" clause in the contract isn't, as a matter of law, a defense to claims of fraud or deceptive conduct. | |||
|comments=[[Stephen Breyer]] partially dissented because the majority had negated the "as is" clause. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/v-s-h-realty-inc-v-texaco-inc | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/v-s-h-realty-inc-v-texaco-inc | ||
Latest revision as of 17:21, January 25, 2024
| VSH v. Texaco | |
| Court | 1st Circuit |
|---|---|
| Citation | 757 F.2d 411 |
| Date decided | March 15, 1985 |
Facts
- V.S.H. Realty, Inc. = "VSH" = plaintiff = company offering to purchase a petroleum storage facility
- Texaco, Inc. = Texaco = defendant = commercial property seller
- In the sales contract, Texaco stated that there were no government investigations on the facility & only 1 oil seepage
- VSH agreed to purchase the commercial real estate "as is."
- After the purchase, VSH noticed several areas of oil seepage on the property.
- VSH also learned that the U.S. Coast Guard was investigating the spills.
- VSH demanded that Texaco
- correct the oil spillage problem
- indemnify VSH, or
- reduce the purchase price.
Procedural History
- VSH sued Texaco alleging mis-representation & deceptive business practices.
- The suit was filed in Massachusetts.
- VSH lost.
Issues
Does 1 party that makes a potentially mis-leading partial disclosure have a duty to reveal all other material facts?
Holding
Yes. If 1 party makes a potentially misleading partial disclosure, that party has a duty to reveal all other material facts.
Judgment
Reversed
Reasons
Judge Coffin: The presence of an "as-is" clause in the contract isn't, as a matter of law, a defense to claims of fraud or deceptive conduct.
Comments
Stephen Breyer partially dissented because the majority had negated the "as is" clause.
Resources
