reputation. The agent showed him a house in an edition called “Woodmont Courts 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 in 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 which met the requirements of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
B.Woodmont was liable because the real estate agent showed him 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.
The Happy Days Day Care is hiring a child care worker. On their application they
specifically ask if you’ve ever been arrested. Tina has applied for a job at Happy Days
and answered no to the question. She has also answered no to the question asking if
there is any reason that she would not be qualified to work with children. Soon after
Tina is hired she severely shakes a baby to stop it from crying causing the baby injuries.
It is discovered at trial that Tina has been fired from numerous day cares for baby
shaking and other various offenses. If the baby’s parents sue Happy Days:
A.Happy Days is not liable because they made a good faith effort to screen applicants
because they specifically asked about past indiscretions.
B.Happy Days is liable because Tina was not dealing with the public, only with
children.