After all how many snakes can be seen from a distance? It should be noted that when it comes to notions of housing, "Johnson vs. Davis, ended the notion 'buyer beware'…when a court ruled that it's a duty of a seller to disclose defects on a home...The ruling made it a duty for owners to disclose what they knew or should have known about defects that would affect the value of the property" (Kilpa 2007). This case involved 'Chinese drywall' that was unsound that the sellers had installed before selling the home. There was no proof that the owners knew for certain it was unsound, but given the cost of the material, it was decided that they should have reasonably known that it was.

This suggests it is not enough that Fox did not know about the snakes for him to force the deal to go through. It could be argued that he should have known had he been acting as a responsible home owner. But in the absence of objective testimony establishing the presence of the...

As the court did not, it must be said that its fact-finding, if not its legal judgments, seem somewhat lacking in this case.
Works Cited

21-12-1. Grounds for rescission. South Dakota: Justia.com. April 9, 2009.

http://law.justia.com/southdakota/codes/21/21-12-1.html

Klipa, Jessica. (2005). "Tainted drywall affects real estate: Firms begin to seek legal advice as more and more neighborhoods are becoming affected. The Bradenton Herald.

April 9, 2009.

http://www.builderonline.com/drywall/tainted-drywall-affects-real-estate-firms-begin-to-seek-legal-advice-as-more-and-more-neighborhoods-are-becoming-affected.aspx