The undeniable miracle at Fatima

[Joods]

Read my response to CD about that case. The court did not rule non-disclosure as fraudulent. But the buyer was allowed to get his down payment back and get out of the contract. Sellers should be honest about what they know, but there are no laws on the books directing them to reveal whether or not their house is indeed haunted.

The brief itself from that case. Here's just a snippet from the first page of that briefing: 

bolding mine. 

See? No laws on the books in NY regarding disclosure of supernatural phenomenon.

Yet the appellate court found for the plaintiff.

You should have also quoted this.

It should be apparent, however, that the most meticulous inspection and the search would not reveal the presence of poltergeists at the premises or unearth the property's ghoulish reputation in the community. Therefore, there is no sound policy reason to deny plaintiff relief for failing to discover a state of affairs which the most prudent purchaser would not be expected to even contemplate (see, Da Silva v Musso, 53 N.Y.2d 543, 551).

Of course it's not on the books.  It's common law.

This is fun.  I love debating legal stuff with people. 

With regards to that case: (same link as I referenced before)

 However, plaintiff herein has not alleged and there is no basis for concluding that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between these parties to an arm's length transaction such as to give rise to a duty to disclose. In addition, there is no allegation that defendants thwarted plaintiff's efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor. (See, London v Courduff, , 141 AD2d, at 804.)

Finally, if the doctrine of caveat emptor is to be discarded, it should be for a reason more substantive than a poltergeist. The existence of a poltergeist is no more binding upon the defendants than it is upon this court.

Based upon the foregoing, the motion court properly dismissed the complaint.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 9, 1990, modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the first cause of action seeking rescission of the contract reinstated, without costs.

Yes - the guy got his down payment back and was allowed to back out of the contract. That wasn't the point I was arguing. What I was saying was that the information that the OP of THIS THREAD was positing was full out false. He cited no references and still hasn't cited one - that points to any laws on any books that state unequivocally what HE was stating to be true. And THAT was my point. 

Okay... can we close this thread? It's clear that the OP doesn't have any intention of ever following through with any requests made numerous times now and it's really pointless to keep trying to repeat the same thing over and over again when he won't even consider anything other than his own brand of bullshit.