Legal Opinion

Manderville v. PCG & S GROUP, INC.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 24, 2007No. D047285PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NARES, J.

Do exculpatory clauses in standardized forms used in the purchase and sale of real estate bar a claim for intentional misrepresentation brought by buyers of real property against the sellers’ brokers alleging the brokers intentionally misrepresented the property could be subdivided, on the ground the buyers cannot show justifiable reliance as a matter of law? We conclude such exculpatory clauses do not preclude, as a matter of law, the buyers’ showing of justifiable reliance, and thus, for purposes of the summary judgment proceeding at issue in this appeal, they do not bar the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400California Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Alliance Mortgage Co. v. RothwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Seeger v. OdellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Shum v. Intel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
  2. Perlas v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Welk v. Beam Suntory Import Co.District Court, S.D. California · 2015
  4. Dias v. Nationwide Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2010
  5. Holmes v. SummerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API