1. GROUP #4 CATHY SCHUKAR MIGUEL HIDALGO YIBO CHEN KELLY ADAM VERA BARINOV Reed vs. King

2. Facts Dorris Reed bought a house from Robert King for $76,000. A woman and her four children had been murdered in the house that Reed bought ten years earlier. King and his real estate agent knew of this and allegedly knew that the event had materially affected the market value of the house.

3. Facts King and his real estate agent said nothing to Reed about the murders and King asked a neighbor not to inform King of them. After the sale, neighbors told Reed of the murders and informed her that the house was consequently worth only $65,000. Reed brought action against King and his real estate agent, alleging fraud and seeking rescission and damages.

4. Facts The complaint was dismissed. Reed appealed.

5. Point of View

8. ☺Does Reed’s pleading state a cause of action? ☺Was there an enforceable contract? ☺If not, was that contract voidable or void by the defrauded party? ☺In other words, was the contract a Fraud in the Execution or a Fraud in the Inducement? ☺Was the misrepresentation in this case also material? ☺Is it likely to induce a reasonable person to manifest assent? ☺Did the maker know that it would be likely to induce the recipient to do so?

9. Requirements of a Contract Four (4) basic requirements Absence of invalidating conduct (poison pills) An Offer Essentials of an offer: communication, intent, and definiteness Fraud Fraud in the execution Fraud in the inducement False Representation Fact Materiality Knowledge of Falsity and Intention to Deceive Justifiable Reliance

10. Similar Cases Finding… Related Laws in Other Countries China: Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests Others… Finding… Will be here soon…

11. Interpretation/Inference

12. Conclusion

13. Implications/Consequences

14. Our Judgment