Legal Opinion
Layman v. Binns
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 24, 1988No. 87-124PublishedCited by 126 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert R. Brown, J.
The determinative issue raised on appeal is whether recovery is barred by application of the doctrine of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). We find that it is for the reasons set forth below.
The doctrine of caveat emptor, although virtually abolished in the area of personal property, remains a viable rule of law in real estate sales. 7 Willis-ton, Contracts (Jaeger 3 Ed. 1963) 779, Section 926; Friedman, Contracts and Conveyances of Real Property (4 Ed. 1984) 37, Section 1.2(n); Kafker, Sell and Tell: The Fall and Revival of The Rule on Nondisclosure in Sales of Used Real Property (1986),…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Johnson v. DavisSupreme Court of Florida · 1985
- Lingsch v. SavageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Miles v. Perpetual Savings & Loan Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1979
- Obde v. SchlemeyerWashington Supreme Court · 1960
- Posner v. DavisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1979
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by126 opinions
- Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n v. R.E. Roark Companies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
- Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
- Rogers v. HillOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
- Jacobs v. RacevskisOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- Brewer v. BrothersOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
121 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.