The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-02-14
NEEDN'T TELL
 EXACT TRUTH Judge Curtis Holds Real Estate Agent Not Compelled to
 Name Lowest Price

New Haven, Feb. 14-Judge Howard J: Curtis has rendered judgment for the defendant in the suit of John $. Bradley against Herbert w. Oviatt. Bradley claimed 2,50o damages and represented that Oviatt had sod to him two pieces of property in Orange, claiming that the Union Savings bank of Danbury had set a certain price upon the property. The price named by Oviatt was several hundred dollars more in each instance than the bank received from the sales. and he asked the court to order a judgment for the balance.
 . Judge Curtis goes into the relation of real estate agent and principal at some length in the following memor- andum:
 This is an action for deceit and if the plaintiff desires to pursue the c SC further the court will permit the judg- allegations of such an action alleged with fair opportunity for the defend- ant to rlead and introduce further evil dence If he desires.
 The first count is for deceit in the sale of a tract of land to the plaintiff by the Union Savings bank Of Dan bury through it's real estate agent, the defendant. I do not find the al ega- ton proves that the defendant repre- scented that cash offer Of $4,750 had heen made for the tract. If the pla in tiff had been m'sled by such fact he would have discovered it and acted upon it long ago. It is perfectly ap- parent that if he had not discovered the defendants transaction with the hank. he would rever have thought oi brinei1g the action.
 ''The defendant cid tell the rlaintiff that the lowest price the hank would ia l.e for the land was S5.G00. The fendant's han6s for ga e, with no fixed price, but deeiring to get the best price oh ta ina F1e-
 ''The defendant made the statement hn hank it's lowest price The plaintiff then agreed to take the property for g. coo. The defendant thereupon represented to the hank that he his cornrn 'ssiors. He sold the prop erty to the plaintiff and retained the difference between the $4,G00 and $5,- 900.
 'aThe defendant claims that he had an agreement with tre bark which permitted him to do this The ba~k's official who testified did not recall any such agreement.
 certain price is his prtncira's lowest price, even if untrue, actto~a hle? While modern 'aw exacts fair dealing in a higher degree than formerly, 1t would seem that a requirement from a vendor or his agent, that if requir- ed of, he must actually state the low est price for which he would sell given property is unreasonable. A man wants the best price he can get. In this case the bark wanted the best price it could get; 1t undoubtedly would not have taken sA.O00 for the land If it knew there was a purchaeer who wou pay $5.0OO for it. Every statement as to price by ven6or or agent is mere present opinion or market value. No sensible man would interpret it. This agent owed the duty to the bank to get the hest price obtainable, and if. after getting the best rr'ce he cou'd, he | deceived the bank and wronge.ully re- tained a portion of the price, the ] wrong was done to the bank. The | plaintiff seems TO believe that becau-e | he was an old acquaintance of Ovi4tt ! oviatt to deal with him with a con- si6eration not due to other customers. Hviatt's duty was peculiarly to his own rrirc a.
 eIaimed that the property would have been worth a penny more to the rep- -esentations as to the banks lowest price were true. Such a repreSenta- ion, if made, at the best can only he .alxen as an expression Of the vendors estimate of the value of the land. The Isual rule of damages is the difference between the value of the property, if t had been as represented, and it's value as it actually is.
 'Vou'd this land have been n0ore valuable if the bank had actually fix | sd its lowest price at $5.C00?
 "The plaintiff paid S5.cC0 and if a price of $5,OOO would affect the value, ne got the full benefit of it.
 Could it req asonably be found that such a representation actually induced man to make a purchase?
 eff the defendant deceived and de- rauded any one, 1t was the Union Savings bank of Danbury.
 ''The same considerations apply to he second count
 CURTIS. Judge.