The Case Precedents below were found on a PDF from Wolff Law in San Francisco ( view) . They are Broken into two Groups:

1.  Representation Requirements / Disclosure Requirements for As Is Sales

2. Broker Fraud / Broker Involved Disclosure Fraud.

3. Damages

4. Recent 

Wolff Law  PDF -  view    ( pages 1-4)

From Page 1- "Sellers’ Duties in Real Estate Transactions to Disclose Property Defects."

"The common law has for decades imposed duties on sellers of real estate, particularly residential real estate such as homes, condominiums, etc.  to disclose to the buyer “any material facts known to the seller affecting the value or desirability of the real estate being sold."

1. • 1. 1. Shapiro v Sutherland (1999) - Common Law Duty to Disclose

        2. Lingsch v Savage (1963) - Duty to disclose

        3. Shapiro v Sutherland (1999),  Karoutas v HomeFed Bank (1991)  - Disclosure Failure results in damages

        4. San Diego Hospice v County of San Diego (1995) - Half Truths are misleading and unacceptable

        5. Marketing West Inc v Sanyo Fisher (USA) (1992) - Suppression and Concealment of facts unacceptable

        6. Jacobs v Freeman (1980) - Full Statements required

        7. Loughrin v Superior Court (1993) - Neither as is sale nor buyer inspections exonerate seller or sellers agent from fraudulent misrepresentations concerning known defects, visible or otherwise.  view

           1. 1. Shapiro v Hu  (1983 - 1987)  view 

              2. Lingsch v Savage (1963)

For more indepth review of these case and understanding of As Is Sales, please see:

https://ca-as-is-case-precedents.bryancanary.com/home

1.  Jue v Smiser (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 312-318

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/23/312.html

May a purchaser of real property who learns of potential material misrepresentations about the property after execution of a purchase agreement-but before consummation of the sale-close escrow and sue for damages? Our answer is, "yes."

"The plaintiffs discovery of the true facts after signing a real property purchase agreement but before the close of escrow does not preclude a finding of justifiable reliance with respect to false representations made by the defendant before the purchase agreement was signed. The plaintiffs reliance at the inception of the agreement is sufficient to support recovery for fraud". 

2 Bagdasarian v. Gragnon (1948) 31 Cal. 2d 744, 750 [192 P.2d 935]

"When a party learns that he has been defrauded, he may, instead of rescinding, elect to stand on the contract and sue for damages, and, in such case his continued performance of the agreement does not constitute a waiver of his action for damages. [Citations.]" (.) 

Wolff Law  PDF -  view    ( pages 4-12)

Summary : Brokers exist to Protect the Public

Milner v Fox (1980) - For a corporate real estate broker to operate lawfully, it must "conduct its brokerage business if at all under the active aegis of its designate broker". 

Norman v DRE  (1979)  - The Designated Broker, not the corporate entity itself is charged with the responsibility to assure corporate compliance with the real estate law.  ("Such a real estate broker must reasonably be charged with responsibility for the corporate compliance with the Real Estate Law, for otherwise with no such fixed responsibility, the statutory purpose would be frustrated") Additional Support -- 1) 10159.2 2)  AB 985 1979 - Staff analysis for Senate Committee on Business and Professions  

Holley v Crank - a Broker is liable for the acts of the sales person, regardless of the Broker's corporate position. 

Valdez v Downy S&L Assn (2007) - Personal responsibility with regards to personal brokers license. 

PMC Inc v Kadisha (2000) / Michaelis v Benavides (1998) -- Where a corporate owner or officer know or has reason to know of the corporations illegal and wrongful acts and allowed them to continue with a goal of monetary gain, he has personal liability for those actions

Michel v Moor and Assoc (2007) - "Liability may be imposed on one who aid and abets the commission of an intentional tort if the person knows the other's conduct constitutes a Breach of Duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act"

Sanders v Superior Court (1994) /  LeVine Inc v Higashi (2005) -- "California Courts have long held that liability for aiding and abetting depends on proof the defendant had actual knowledge of specific primary wrong the defendant substantially assisted". 

Casey v Us Bank Nat Assn (2005)  - Aiding and abetting with greater details

Robinson v Grossman (1997) - A Broker must complete his or her portion of the TDS , stating his her observations based on an independent inspection of the property  (ref CA 1102.6 for TDS info).  The disclosure acts shall be made in Good Faith (CA 1102.7)  

• "The Duty of a real estate broker, representing the seller is to disclose facts, includes the affirmative duty to conduct a reasonbly competent and dilligent inspection of the residential property listed for sale and to disclose to prospective purchasers all facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property that such an investigation would reveal". 

• "The dual nature of this duty does not sound exclusively in negligence. While the first prong of the obligation (inspection) embodies traditional negligence, the breach of the second prong (disclsoure of material facts) encompasses actionable conduct associated with both negligence and negligent misrepresentation."

Loken v Century 21-Award Properties  (1995) - "“‘Real estate agents hold themselves out to the public as professionals, and, as such, are required to make reasonable use of their superior knowledge, skills and experience within the area of their expertise. [Citation.] Because such agents are expected to make use of their superior knowledge and skills, which is the reason they are engaged . . . .’”

Robinson v. Grossman, supra, 57 Cal. App. 4th at 640, quoting Easton v. Strasburger. -- Agent is liable as well as Broker

• "One who assumes to act as an agent is responsible to third persons as a principal for his acts in the course of his agency, in any of the following cases, and in no others . . . ,when his acts are wrongful in their nature." Cal Civ Code § 2343.

• `An agent or employee is always liable for his own torts, whether his employer is liable or not.' " (Holt v. Booth (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1080, fn. 5 [2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727]; accord, Michaelis v. Benavides (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 681, 686 [71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776].)

• "In other words, when the agent commits a tort, such as ... fraud...,then ... the agent [is] subject to liability in a civil suit for such wrongful conduct." (Mottola v. R.L. Kautz & Co. (1988) 199 Cal. App. 3d 98, 108 [244 Cal. Rptr. 737]; accord, Crawford v. Nastos (1960) 182 Cal. App. 2d 659, 664-665 [6 Cal. Rptr. 425]; see generally 2 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Agency and Employment, § 149, p. 144.)" `[I]f a tortious act has been omitted by an agent acting under authority of his principal, the fact that the principal thus becomes liable does not, of course, exonerate the agent from liability.' ... The fact that the tortious act arises during the performance of a duty created by contract does not negate the agents liability." (Bayuc v. Edson (1965) 230 Cal. App. 2d 309, 320 [46 Cal. Rptr. 49].) Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 4, 68-69. And "a principal who puts an agent in a position that enables the agent, while apparently acting within his authority, to commit a fraud upon third persons is [also] subject to liability to such third persons for the fraud." Bayuk v. Edson (1965) 236 Cal. App. 2d 309, 315. Conversely, "[if] a tortious act has been committed by an agent acting under authority of his principal, the fact that the principal thus becomes liable does not of course exonerate the agent from liability." (Perkins v. Blauth (1912) 163 Cal. 782, 787 [127 P. 50]; Rest. 2d Agency, §§ 343, 344 et seq; Rest. 2d Agency, Appendix, Rep. Notes, pp. 561,562; 20 A.L.R. 97; 99 A.L.R. 408.)

Bayuk v. Edson - The fact that the tortious act arises during the performance of a duty created by contract does not negate the agent's liability.  (Mechem, Outlines of the Law of Agency (4th ed.) §§ 343, 346, pp. 232, 234.)

Miller & Starr, California  Real Estate - Further, any person - regardless of whether they own any interest in the subject property - is liable in fraud for a false statement, misstatement, failure to disclose, or incomplete disclosure.

In a real estate fraud case, Civil Code § 3343(a) would apply and asks the Court or Jury to determine this difference between the price paid and the actual value of the property with the undisclosed defects, which is, in effect, the amount the buyers overpaid for the property, taking into account the true or “actual value” of the property with the undisclosed defects.

Saunders v Taylor 1996 - "One defrauded in the purchase, sale or exchange of property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that which he received . . . ."

Small v Fritz Companies (2003) / Auerbach v Great W. Bank (1999) - " This statute thus “limits recovery to the difference between the actual values, intrinsic and economic, of that which the defrauded person gave up and that which he or she received in return, plus sums expended in reliance on the fraud”.

• "The unqualified language of section 3343 indicates that the plaintiff should receive as damages the difference in value between everything with which he parted and everything he received”

 Jimenez v Capero   compenstury and 5x punitive for fraudulent concealment