That's a substantial distance at a greatly increased cost to you. Moreover, the seller knew or should have known of the reality or facts but intentially misrepresented such (fraud) to you.

As such you are entitled to void the contract and a return of any hand/earnest monies paid.

In reality, you are entitled to any expenses you incurred - but for their fraud you would not have entertained looking at the property.

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.

 

Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.

 

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

 

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

 

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

 

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

 

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

 

A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.

 

The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if the seller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is an auto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.

 

A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence. For example, if a real estate agent fails to disclose that a home is built on a toxic waste dump, the omission may be regarded as a fraudulent statement. Even if the agent does not know of the dump, the omission may be considered fraudulent. This is constructive fraud, and it is usually inferred when a party is a fiduciary and has a duty to know of, and disclose, particular facts.

 

Fraud is an independent criminal offense, but it also appears in different contexts as the means used to gain a legal advantage or accomplish a specific crime. For example, it is fraud for a person to make a false statement on a license application in order to engage in the regulated activity. A person who did so would not be convicted of fraud. Rather, fraud would simply describe the method used to break the law or regulation requiring the license.

 

Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of False Pretenses created to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.

This is also like a "latent defect".

In the law of the sale of property (both real estate and personal property or chattels) a latent defect is a fault in the property that could not have been discovered by a reasonably thorough inspection before the sale.

The general law of the sale of property is caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) and buyers are under a general duty to inspect their purchase before taking possession. However, it is understood at law that inspection is not often sufficient to detect certain deficiencies in the product that can only be discovered through destructive testing or other means that a seller could not reasonably be expected to allow under normal conditions. For example, wood beams and interior brickwork often cannot be fully assessed without destructive testing, and it would be unreasonable for the seller to allow the buyer to take apart a car's engine.

As such, the law expects that buyers will protect themselves in the sales contract against defects they cannot possibly be expected to assess prior to purchase. As such, the term "latent defect" is often used as part of the guarantee clauses in a sales contract so that the buyer can recover damages from the seller if defects turn up in the property after the sale. For example, the seller may be required to pay for repairs of any such damage.

There is no automatic right for a buyer to claim against a seller for such latent defects when they are discovered, absent an agreement in contract. However, if a latent defect is discovered, there is often a presumption against the seller when a claim is made in misrepresentation that the seller knew about the latent defect. As such, the seller is required to show that he or she could not possibly have known of the defect, rather than the buyer having to show that the seller did know about the defect. However, if it can be shown the seller could not have known about the defect (and was not wilfully blind to the possibility) then the buyer's claim will not succeed.

However, when the defect could have been discovered by the buyer by a thorough inspection (a "patent defect"), the buyer cannot possibly succeed in a claim against the seller unless the seller actively took steps to hide the defect from a normal inspection.

In all cases, where a seller actively misrepresents the condition of the property, such as by taking steps to make an inspection impossible or by lying about problems when directly asked, the buyer will almost always succeed unless it can be shown that the buyer was independently aware of the defect and completed the transaction nevertheless.




Please ask for "Law Pro" if you have any further future questions!

Just Answer is a "PAY FOR SERVICE" Website. Please press the GREEN ACCEPT BUTTON so I will receive credit for assisting you (even if you placed a deposit or have a subscription program). You may continue to ask follow-up questions after accepting. If the information is helpful, I would very much appreciate positive feedback. Bonuses are also appreciated. If you do have a follow-up question, press REPLY, NOT relist, or else I won’t receive the question.