A buys lots from B that the County informs him are fully serviced. In fact the lots had services fully installed decades before. But because they were never used, since no homes were ever built, and because they were never maintained, the services installed had become unusable and essentially worse than useless since the cost of repairing exceeded the cost of redoing the whole system anew. The County nevertheless, knowingly lying about that fact, told A the services were available. A sells to C who is also told by the County that services are available. C asks for a building permit before closing the sale with A. The County denies the permit and finally admits that there are no services available and won't be for many years. C reneges on the deal for good and sufficient reason. Question: Since 1. The deal was lost as a direct result of the absence of services, and 2. Since the lack of maintenance by the County was the direct proximate cause for the absence of services, with the additional aggravating factor that the County had been consistently and knowingly lying for years about the existence of services. The case has gone to trial and is in the appellate stage.
Should the appeal raise the issue of the County deliberately lying?
My view is that raising such an issue can:
1. At best tend to create some form of estoppel on the County's arguments.
2. At a minimum create a moral position even if not a strictly legal one, that cannot but help the case,
3. Also at worst, create a strong favorable atmosphere for settling favorably,
4. At worst, not hurt the position at all.
The only possible downside being the possible harm to high profile lawyers (to them alone, not their clients) publicly accusing a County they work in of lying, however true and documented the assertion is. A possibility if the lawyers sincerely ***** ***** is no identifiable legal advantage.