Harper v. Adametz

113 A.2d 136 (1955)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Tesar was the conservator of his father’s estate of 80 acres. Adametz (D) was a real estate agent who was acting as the agent for the sale of Tesar’s property. D advertised a portion of the estate consisting of five acres and an old colonial house for $6,200. This ad caught the eye of Harper (P). D showed the property to P and told him that seller was asking $8,500 for it, but the building and the five acres could be bought for less. No offer was made. D then wrote Tesar stating that he had a client who was willing to pay $6,500 for the farm and asked for an immediate reply. The attorney for Tesar wrote that they would accept the offer subject to approval of the Probate Court and that they would need a written offer and a 10% deposit. P visited again and made an offer of $7,000 for the entire farm. D promised to convey this offer to Tesar. Instead, D sent his own check for $500 on the purported offer of $6,500. D then told Mazanek, a relative of Tesar, that P wanted to purchase only a small portion of the acreage and that he would like to purchase the rest for his son but did not want to lose the commissions. D got Mazanek and Hibbard, a friend of the family, to act as a medium for passing title to the farm. D then told P that his offer was rejected and that P could get the buildings and some of the land. P then made an offer for $6,000 for 17 acres including the buildings. D accepted this offer and P was satisfied with his purchase. Tesar signed a contract to sell the farm to Mazanek and Hibbard for $6,500. The Probate Court approved the deal. A deed was delivered to Mazanek and Hibbard and they, in turn, deeded 17 acres to P who paid $6,000. Three days later, Mazanek and Hibbard conveyed the rest of the property to Walter Adametz, D’s son. P sued D when he found out how he was duped on the transaction. The trial court concluded that D was the agent for Tesar and not for P and that P sustained no loss by reason of any misrepresentation made by D and that P failed to prove actionable fraud.