Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Florida opinions name it 4 courts 1954–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
GREEN ACRES v. First Union Nat. Bankgreen2 sentences2017“Exceptions [to the doctrine of caveat emptor] arise: 1) where some artifice or trick has been employed to prevent the purchaser from making independent inquiry; 2) where the other party does not have equal opportunity to become apprised of the fact; and, 3) where a party undertakes to disclose facts and fails to disclose the whole truth.” Green Acres, Inc. v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 637 So.2d 363, 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (citation omitted). 2017“Exceptions [to the doctrine of caveat emptor] arise: 1) where some artifice or trick has been employed to prevent the purchaser from making independent inquiry; 2) where the other party does not have equal opportunity to become apprised of the fact; and, 3) where a party undertakes to disclose facts and fails to disclose the whole truth.” Green Acres, Inc. v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 637 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Besett v. Basnettgreen2 sentences2004The supreme court has held that "[a] person guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation should not be permitted to hide behind the doctrine of caveat emptor." Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995, 997 (Fla.1980). 2002Because the public record in this case was a matter outside the property being sold, I regard the majority's chain of title discussion commencing on page 95 as dicta and thus unnecessary to the resolution of the issues in this case. [5] Moreover, the fact *97 that a purchaser may be charged with constructive knowledge of information within the chain of title is a different inquiry from whether the purchaser actually knows of the falsity of the representation or whether the falsity is obvious to the purchaser, which is the operative inquiry in Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995, 998 (Fla.1980). [ | 2 | 3 |
Haskell Co. v. Lane Co., Ltd.green2 sentences2021Green Acres, Inc. v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 637 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Haskell Co. v. Lane Co., Ltd., 612 So. 2d 669, 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). 2005See Lane Co., 612 So.2d 669 (certifying a question to the supreme court questioning the future application of this doctrine). | 2 | 2 |
Wasser v. Sasonigreen2 sentences2021Assocs., Inc., 861 So. 2d 445, 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (per curiam) (holding, in the context of the doctrine of caveat emptor, that “a sophisticated purchaser of commercial property who agreed to an ‘as is’ purchase contract, had ample opportunity to conduct inspections, and could have discovered an alleged defect through the exercise of ordinary diligence, may be disgruntled, but does not have a cause of action for fraud” (quoting Wasser v. Sasoni, 652 So. 2d 411, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995))). 2017See Wasser v. Sasoni, 652 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“[T]he doctrine of caveat emptor, or ‘buyer beware,’ is still the common law rule applied to purchasers of commercial property.”). | 2 | 2 |
Turnberry Court Corp. v. Bellinigreen2 sentences2021The doctrine of caveat emptor, which Florida courts continue to apply, “places the duty to examine and judge the value and condition of the property solely on the buyer and protects the seller from liability for any defects.” Transcapital Bank, 226 So. 3d at 862 (quoting Turnberry Ct. Corp. v. Bellini, 962 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). 2021The doctrine of caveat emptor, which Florida courts continue to apply, “places the duty to examine and judge the value and condition of the property solely on the buyer and protects the seller from liability for any defects.” Transcapital Bank, 226 So. 3d at 862 (quoting Turnberry Ct. Corp. v. Bellini, 962 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). | 2 | 2 |
Humber v. Mortongreen2 sentences1983Id. at 413 , 175 S.E.2d at 794 (emphasis supplied). [8] See, e.g., Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W.2d 554, 561-62 (Tex. 1968), in which the Texas Supreme Court stated: Obviously, the ordinary purchaser is not in a position to ascertain when there is a defect in a chimney flue, or vent of a heating apparatus, or whether the plumbing work covered by a concrete slab foundation is faulty. * * * * * * The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home-buying practices. 1978As said in Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554, 562 (Tex. 1968)— “The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home buying practices. | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Davisgreen2 sentences2021In Johnson, the supreme court discussed the caveat emptor doctrine before arriving at its holding concerning the duty to disclose. 480 So. 2d at 627–29. 2009In a commercial real property transaction, Florida law distinguishes between the mere nondisclosure of a known defect, a non-actionable offense, and the active concealment of one, an actionable offense: The doctrine of caveat emptor (literally, “let the buyer beware”) provides that, when parties deal at arm’s length, buyers are expected “to fend for themselves, protected only by their own skepticism as to the value and condition of the subject of the transaction.” Biff Craine, Note, Real Property — Sellers’ Liability for Nondisclosure of Real Property Defects — Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 | 1 | 4 |
Conklin v. Hurleygreen2 sentences2013See Conklin, 428 So.2d at 656 . 1995Although the doctrine of caveat emptor was abolished in residential real estate transactions, Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1985), this court has specifically found that Johnson did not extend a duty to disclose to commercial transactions, and thus did not "change the long line of case law establishing caveat emptor as the rule in the sale of commercial property." Futura Realty, 578 So.2d at 364 (citing Conklin v. Hurley, 428 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1983)). [1] Assuming arguendo that false representations had been made, a misrepresentation is not actionable where its truth might have been disc | 1 | 2 |
Lindsley v. Pharegreen2 sentences1981Lindsley v. Phare, 115 Fla. 454 , 155 So. 812 (Fla. 1934); Balding v. Fleisher, 279 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). 1981Lindsley v. Phare, 115 Fla. 454 , 155 So. 812 (Fla. 1934); Balding v. Fleisher, 279 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). | 1 | 2 |
Agrobin, Inc. v. Botanica Development Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2021Assocs., Inc., 861 So. 2d 445, 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (per curiam) (holding, in the context of the doctrine of caveat emptor, that “a sophisticated purchaser of commercial property who agreed to an ‘as is’ purchase contract, had ample opportunity to conduct inspections, and could have discovered an alleged defect through the exercise of ordinary diligence, may be disgruntled, but does not have a cause of action for fraud” (quoting Wasser v. Sasoni, 652 So. 2d 411, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995))). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 508524green1 sentence1993See Smith Land & Improvement Corp. v. Celotex Corp., 851 F.2d 86 (3d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1029 , 109 S.Ct. 837 , 102 L.Ed.2d 969 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipesgreen1 sentence1993See Smith Land & Improvement Corp. v. Celotex Corp., 851 F.2d 86 (3d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1029 , 109 S.Ct. 837 , 102 L.Ed.2d 969 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Dianella Shipping Corp.green1 sentence1993See Smith Land & Improvement Corp. v. Celotex Corp., 851 F.2d 86 (3d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1029 , 109 S.Ct. 837 , 102 L.Ed.2d 969 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
McDowell v. Dynamics Corp. of Americagreen1 sentence1993See Smith Land & Improvement Corp. v. Celotex Corp., 851 F.2d 86 (3d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1029 , 109 S.Ct. 837 , 102 L.Ed.2d 969 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Hoffman v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1993See, e.g., Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431, 434 (Fla. 1973) (while district courts are not free to disregard precedent established by the supreme court, they are free to state their reasons for advocating change). | 1 | 1 |
Rutledge v. Dodenhoffgreen2 sentences1983Id. at 413 , 175 S.E.2d at 794 (emphasis supplied). [8] See, e.g., Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W.2d 554, 561-62 (Tex. 1968), in which the Texas Supreme Court stated: Obviously, the ordinary purchaser is not in a position to ascertain when there is a defect in a chimney flue, or vent of a heating apparatus, or whether the plumbing work covered by a concrete slab foundation is faulty. * * * * * * The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home-buying practices. 1983Id. at 413 , 175 S.E.2d at 794 (emphasis supplied). [8] See, e.g., Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W.2d 554, 561-62 (Tex. 1968), in which the Texas Supreme Court stated: Obviously, the ordinary purchaser is not in a position to ascertain when there is a defect in a chimney flue, or vent of a heating apparatus, or whether the plumbing work covered by a concrete slab foundation is faulty. * * * * * * The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home-buying practices. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Henderson v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2021The doctrine of caveat emptor, which Florida courts continue to apply, “places the duty to examine and judge the value and condition of the property solely on the buyer and protects the seller from liability for any defects.” Transcapital Bank, 226 So. 3d at 862 (quoting Turnberry Ct. Corp. v. Bellini, 962 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). 2021The doctrine of caveat emptor, which Florida courts continue to apply, “places the duty to examine and judge the value and condition of the property solely on the buyer and protects the seller from liability for any defects.” Transcapital Bank, 226 So. 3d at 862 (quoting Turnberry Ct. Corp. v. Bellini, 962 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Futura Realty v. Lone Star Bldg. Centers
green
1 sentence1995Although the doctrine of caveat emptor was abolished in residential real estate transactions, Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1985), this court has specifically found that Johnson did not extend a duty to disclose to commercial transactions, and thus did not "change the long line of case law establishing caveat emptor as the rule in the sale of commercial property." Futura Realty, 578 So.2d at 364 (citing Conklin v. Hurley, 428 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1983)). [1] Assuming arguendo that false representations had been made, a misrepresentation is not actionable where its truth might have been disc | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Stewart v. Phoenix National Bank
green
1 sentence1994"This of course, does not mean that the bank may not make a reasonable legitimate profit from the client, but it does mean that it cannot appeal to the doctrine of caveat emptor, and that it must disclose fairly and honestly to the client all the facts which might be presumed to influence him in regard to his actions." Stewart, 64 P.2d at 106 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Brooks v. Peters
green
2 sentences1993The trial court entered summary judgments in favor of the landlord, and this court affirmed, citing Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141 , 25 So.2d 205 (1946), for the proposition that the doctrine of caveat emptor (or, in the case of a lease, caveat lessee) precluded recovery. 1993The trial court entered summary judgments in favor of the landlord, and this court affirmed, citing Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141 , 25 So.2d 205 (1946), for the proposition that the doctrine of caveat emptor (or, in the case of a lease, caveat lessee) precluded recovery. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Mansur v. Eubanks
green
1 sentence1993Mansur v. Eubanks, 368 So.2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kuczmanski v. Gill
green
1 sentence1984Kuczmanski v. Gill, 225 Va. 367 (1983). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Weintraub v. Krobatsch
green
2 sentences1984While admittedly our law has progressed more slowly in the real property field than in other fields, there have been notable stirrings even there. [Citations omitted.] ... our law should be based on current notions of what is "right and just." [Citation omitted,] id. at 456 , 317 A.2d at 74-75 . 1984While admittedly our law has progressed more slowly in the real property field than in other fields, there have been notable stirrings even there. [Citations omitted.] ... our law should be based on current notions of what is "right and just." [Citation omitted,] id. at 456 , 317 A.2d at 74-75 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Posner v. Davis
green
2 sentences1984Observing that "the modern trend in the law regarding the sale of a home is away from strict adherence to the doctrine of caveat emptor," id. at 644 , 32 Ill.Dec. at 190 , 395 N.E.2d at 137 , and that the buyers had testified that they would not have bought the home if they had known about the flooding or leakage, the court concluded that "the evidence clearly shows defendants knew of and failed to disclose," id., latent material defects. 1984Observing that "the modern trend in the law regarding the sale of a home is away from strict adherence to the doctrine of caveat emptor," id. at 644 , 32 Ill.Dec. at 190 , 395 N.E.2d at 137 , and that the buyers had testified that they would not have bought the home if they had known about the flooding or leakage, the court concluded that "the evidence clearly shows defendants knew of and failed to disclose," id., latent material defects. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Cook v. Salishan Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences1983It does a disservice not only to the ordinary prudent purchaser but to the industry itself by lending encouragement to the unscrupulous, fly-by-night operator and purveyor of shoddy work. [9] See, e.g., Bearman, Caveat Emptor in Sales of Realty — Recent Assaults Upon the Rule, 14 Vand.L.Rev. 541 (1961); Roberts, The Case of the Unwary Home Buyer: The Housing Merchant Did It, 52 Cornell L.Rev. 835 (1967); Wells, supra note 3. [10] The Oregon Supreme Court, in a footnote to Cook, 279 Or. at 338 , 569 P.2d at 1034 , noted that it attached no significance to the fact that a long-term lease rather 1983It does a disservice not only to the ordinary prudent purchaser but to the industry itself by lending encouragement to the unscrupulous, fly-by-night operator and purveyor of shoddy work. [9] See, e.g., Bearman, Caveat Emptor in Sales of Realty — Recent Assaults Upon the Rule, 14 Vand.L.Rev. 541 (1961); Roberts, The Case of the Unwary Home Buyer: The Housing Merchant Did It, 52 Cornell L.Rev. 835 (1967); Wells, supra note 3. [10] The Oregon Supreme Court, in a footnote to Cook, 279 Or. at 338 , 569 P.2d at 1034 , noted that it attached no significance to the fact that a long-term lease rather | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Balding v. Fleisher
green
1 sentence1981Lindsley v. Phare, 115 Fla. 454 , 155 So. 812 (Fla. 1934); Balding v. Fleisher, 279 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co.
green
2 sentences1980Consequently, we find the trial court erred in holding that DeLoache was not personally liable pursuant to Section 607.271(5), supra. We also have the unqualified view that, at the very least, the trial court prematurely entered summary final judgment in favor of DeLoache based on the doctrine of caveat emptor. *1344 The classic illustration of fraud is where one party having superior knowledge intentionally fails to disclose a material fact, Columbus Hotel Corporation v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464 , 156 So. 893 (1934); Pryor v. Oak Ridge Development Corporation, 97 Fla. 1085 , 119 So. 1980Consequently, we find the trial court erred in holding that DeLoache was not personally liable pursuant to Section 607.271(5), supra. We also have the unqualified view that, at the very least, the trial court prematurely entered summary final judgment in favor of DeLoache based on the doctrine of caveat emptor. *1344 The classic illustration of fraud is where one party having superior knowledge intentionally fails to disclose a material fact, Columbus Hotel Corporation v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464 , 156 So. 893 (1934); Pryor v. Oak Ridge Development Corporation, 97 Fla. 1085 , 119 So. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Joiner v. McCullers
green
2 sentences1980Consequently, we find the trial court erred in holding that DeLoache was not personally liable pursuant to Section 607.271(5), supra. We also have the unqualified view that, at the very least, the trial court prematurely entered summary final judgment in favor of DeLoache based on the doctrine of caveat emptor. *1344 The classic illustration of fraud is where one party having superior knowledge intentionally fails to disclose a material fact, Columbus Hotel Corporation v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464 , 156 So. 893 (1934); Pryor v. Oak Ridge Development Corporation, 97 Fla. 1085 , 119 So. 1980Consequently, we find the trial court erred in holding that DeLoache was not personally liable pursuant to Section 607.271(5), supra. We also have the unqualified view that, at the very least, the trial court prematurely entered summary final judgment in favor of DeLoache based on the doctrine of caveat emptor. *1344 The classic illustration of fraud is where one party having superior knowledge intentionally fails to disclose a material fact, Columbus Hotel Corporation v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464 , 156 So. 893 (1934); Pryor v. Oak Ridge Development Corporation, 97 Fla. 1085 , 119 So. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Pryor v. Oak Ridge Development Corp. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Stackpole v. Hancock green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hirschman v. Hodges, O'Hara & Russell Co.
green
1 sentence1980Consequently, we find the trial court erred in holding that DeLoache was not personally liable pursuant to Section 607.271(5), supra. We also have the unqualified view that, at the very least, the trial court prematurely entered summary final judgment in favor of DeLoache based on the doctrine of caveat emptor. *1344 The classic illustration of fraud is where one party having superior knowledge intentionally fails to disclose a material fact, Columbus Hotel Corporation v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464 , 156 So. 893 (1934); Pryor v. Oak Ridge Development Corporation, 97 Fla. 1085 , 119 So. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Kitchen v. Long
green
1 sentence1980Consequently, we find the trial court erred in holding that DeLoache was not personally liable pursuant to Section 607.271(5), supra. We also have the unqualified view that, at the very least, the trial court prematurely entered summary final judgment in favor of DeLoache based on the doctrine of caveat emptor. *1344 The classic illustration of fraud is where one party having superior knowledge intentionally fails to disclose a material fact, Columbus Hotel Corporation v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464 , 156 So. 893 (1934); Pryor v. Oak Ridge Development Corporation, 97 Fla. 1085 , 119 So. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Wawak v. Stewart green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.