09-20-2007, 06:10 AM
The advertisement calling the land "pristine" would probably be regarded as "puffery", which is a normal and accepted business practice, within bounds. And, in fact, pristine may be in the eyes of the beholder.Many people might well regard a property within proximity of a waterfall as desireable and relatively unspoiled, especially if they are moving to it from a highly urbanized area on the mainland. Does pristine mean frog-free, or does it mean, fresh and clean and near a beautiful waterfall? If I were representing defendant, I might point out that "pristine" is used in at least 43 MLS listings for vacant lots, including listings for vacant lots in Leilani Estates (not frog free) and Nanawale (frog heaven!). Obviously, "pristine" doesn't mean what it used to mean and people, including me, find such properties desireable.
The problem for plaintiff, of course, is the disclosure, which is mandated by Hawaii law, and which they do not dispute they received. As a result, they can only focus on the alleged false representations prior to entering into the contract as they will likely be charged with knowledge of the disclosure as of the date it was disclosed to them.
Good move though (if they had a choice) on making sure the action is heard on Ohau, and not on the East Side of the Big Island. People on the East Side are likely to have little sympathy for a party that enters in to contract in May on a $2 million property and somehow remains ignorant, even after written disclosure, of the presence of coqui frogs on the premises until September.
This is for amusement only and no person or entity should rely on any aspect of the above amusement for any purpose other than amusement.
The problem for plaintiff, of course, is the disclosure, which is mandated by Hawaii law, and which they do not dispute they received. As a result, they can only focus on the alleged false representations prior to entering into the contract as they will likely be charged with knowledge of the disclosure as of the date it was disclosed to them.
Good move though (if they had a choice) on making sure the action is heard on Ohau, and not on the East Side of the Big Island. People on the East Side are likely to have little sympathy for a party that enters in to contract in May on a $2 million property and somehow remains ignorant, even after written disclosure, of the presence of coqui frogs on the premises until September.
This is for amusement only and no person or entity should rely on any aspect of the above amusement for any purpose other than amusement.