Manderville

Manderville v. PCG & S GROUP, INC.

Good Law
146 Cal. App. 4th 1486·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 87·2007 Daily Journal DAR 1121·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 59·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 894
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 24, 2007D047285California7,642 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nares, J.

Do exculpatory clauses in standardized forms used in the purchase and sale of real estate bar a claim for intentional misrepresentation brought by buyers of real property against the sellers’ brokers alleging the brokers intentionally misrepresented the property could be subdivided, on the ground the buyers cannot show justifiable reliance as a matter of law? We conclude such exculpatory clauses do not preclude, as a matter of law, the buyers’ showing of justifiable reliance, and thus, for purposes of the summary judgment proceeding at issue in this appeal, they do not bar the buyers’ claim for intentional misrepresentation against the brokers.

We further conclude that any lack of due diligence by the buyers in conducting an investigation of the zoning and other laws restricting the development and use of the property also does not preclude, as a matter of law, the buyers’ showing of justifiable reliance as an element of their claim for intentional misrepresentation. Therefore, we reverse the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the brokers on the buyers’ claim for intentional misrepresentation. Because the brokers did not seek summary adjudication of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.