reputation. The agent showed him a house in a development called “Woodmont Court at
Montville.” Vagias asked if the house was within the jurisdictional limits of Montville.
The agent and a representative for the builder, who both knew the township boundaries,
assured him it was within the city limits. Vagias bought the house but was unable to
enroll his son in the school district because the property was outside the city limits.
Vagias sued, claiming he paid a premium for the house based on the school district’s
reputation. The homebuilder argued that the misrepresentations were unintentional and
that Vagias did not suffer a loss in the value of his home. The court held that:
A. Woodmont was liable because the location of the house was the basis of the bargain
and the misrepresentation was affirmative, thus meeting the requirements of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
B. Woodmont was liable because the real estate agent showed Vagias a house that did
not meet his requests.
C. Woodmont was not liable because the misrepresentation was not intentional.
D. Woodmont was not liable because the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not
apply to real estate.
Will and Kendrick live in a state that requires that contracts involving transactions over
$500 be in writing. If they enter a verbal agreement to buy a car for $1,500, this
contract is:
A. valid.
B. void.