Court Opinion

ID: 9609342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:26:21.396901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:18.584485
License: Public Domain

Reed, C.J.
(concurring specially)—I concur with my brother, Pearson, J., but believe a caveat is justified. My concern is that this opinion not be taken for authority or precedent that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act apply without question to the transaction here involved. Had there been a cross appeal on this issue, supported and opposed by competent and thorough briefing on both sides, we could have addressed the issue squarely, and properly resolved it.
To me, this was a common, run-of-the-mill sale of Blackacre. The sellers, apparently innocently but negligently, misrepresented the true lines and thus the acreage. Innocent or not, the misrepresentation damaged Nuttall and rendered sellers liable. Nuttall could be fully compensated by the usual common law remedies. If not settled, his claims could have been litigated with a modicum of effort by the application of "black-letter" law, and with few complications or subtleties.
Merely because one joint owner happened to be a broker should not convert his mistakes into something insidious— a deceptive act or practice, triggering the penalties and attorney fee provisions of the CPA.