VSH v. Texaco

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Revision as of 17:21, January 25, 2024 by DeRien (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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