On June 29, 2020, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Goitia et al., in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleging that Juan Goitia, the manager of several housing units in Davenport, sexually harassed a tenant from March 2018 to August 2018. According to the complaint, Goitia made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments, touched the tenant`s body several times without her consent, and retaliated against the tenant for filing a complaint about fair housing. The United States also named 908 Bridge Cooperative, owner of the rental property where the harassment took place, as a defendant in the lawsuit. Many courts hold this to be an unfair rule because the seller, as the party who is in possession of the property until its completion, is in the best position to prevent damage to the property. As a result, some courts and even states have enacted laws that stipulate that the risk of loss does not pass from the seller to the buyer until the transaction is completed. Instead, the risk of loss always remains in the hands of the owner of the property. According to this rule, in the event of a claim that significantly reduces the market value of the property between the signing of the contract and the conclusion, the buyer can deduct the amount of this depreciation from the purchase price. Is it worth suing a buyer for breach of contract? Absolutely, especially if the seller has suffered a significant financial loss. What is the amount of damage caused by the breach of contract in terms of breach of contract? The amount of financial damages that the court may award is based on the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time of the breach, less any deposits or other payments already made, plus interest from the date of default. On February 22, 2018, the United States filed a complaint and entered into a settlement agreement in United States v.
BMW Financial Services (D.N.J.), a model or practical case of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, alleging that prepaid rental amounts will not be refunded to military personnel who have prematurely terminated their car rental after receiving military orders. The settlement agreement provides for BMW FS to pay $2,165,518.84 to 492 members of the service and $60,788 to the U.S. Treasury. The agreement also includes non-monetary relief, including changes to BMW FS`s lease termination policies to ensure required refunds are provided, and employee training. Very often, real estate is sold through a broker. The general procedure goes something like that. The seller signs a contract with a broker, which gives the broker the right to register the property and show it to potential buyers. When the property is sold, the broker will charge a commission, which is usually a percentage of the purchase price, from the seller. As a rule, the commission of brokers is about 6% of the purchase price, although the recent trend is to lower the commission, since computerized technology and the Internet have greatly facilitated the marketing of homes to a large number of potential buyers. On July 18, 2017, the U.S. Attorney`s Office entered into a settlement agreement in U.S.
v. Trump Village Section IV Inc. (E.D.N.Y.), a model fair housing law, or an election practice/case. The complaint, which was filed on the 23rd. Filed in December 2015, a housing co-op in Brooklyn, New York, refused to allow three residents, including an army veteran with PTSD, to live with their emotional support dogs, and then took revenge on them for exercising their rights to fair housing. The settlement agreement provides for a total of $40,000 and a civil penalty of $10,000 for the three families. The case was referred to the ministry after the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints, conducted an investigation and filed a charge of discrimination. As we discussed in our courses on contracts and torts, the traditional common law approach was to keep the seller in breach of contract solely because of his false statements to the buyer. In other words, a seller could fail to mention a material deficiency in the property for sale, which would not entail any liability on the part of the seller.
.