1. Had Dingle not known that Vagias was specifically looking for a home in Montville Township yet had still made her statements, would the out-come of the case have been different? Why or why not? Explain your answer.

2. Why did the court consider the misinformation to be a “critical issue” in Vagias’s decision to buy?

3. Suppose Vagias paid market value for his home and was able to send his son to a highly rated elementary school. Now the only detriment imposed upon him is a lower social status due to the location of the home out-side of the Montville Township. How does this affect your analysis?

Vagias hired Dingle as his realtor and told her that he was in the market to buy a house in Montville Township, New Jersey. Vagias communicated to Dingle that he desired that par-ticular municipality due to the favorable reputation of the township’s schools. Dingle showed Vagias a house in a development called Woodmont Court at Montville, and Vagias inquired as to whether this house was actually located within the jurisdictional limits of Montville Township. Dingle and a representative of the builder, neither of whom were familiar with the township boundaries, assured Vagias that the house was in Montville Township and Vagias purchased the home for $740,000. When Vagias attempted to enroll his son in the school system, he learned that his house was actually located outside the Montville Township limits. Vagias sued to have the sale rescinded on the basis of Dingle’s and the homebuilder’s misrepresentation concerning location. Vagias argued that he had paid a pre-mium for the house based on the reputation of the school system in a certain township. Woodmont argued that the misrepresentations were not inten-tional and that Vagias suffered no loss in the value of the home.

The Superior Court of New Jersey ruled in favor of Vagias. The court held that Vagias specified that location in Montville Township was a prerequisite to purchasing a house at Woodmont and, therefore, that location became a part of the basis of the bar-gain. Under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Dingle’s misrepresentation need not be an inten-tional misrepresentation. Dingle and Woodmont knew of Vagias’s concerns and made an affirmative misrepresentation. That is all that is necessary to prevail in a New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act case. 

“[W]hen [the real estate agent] told [Vagias] that the house was in ‘Montville’ she made an affirmative misrepresentation. Her intent is not an issue for purposes of the Act. If she provided plaintiffs with affirmative misinformation on what she knew was a critical issue in their decision to purchase the house, she violated the Act. . . . Further, she was not an innocent bystander making a casual comment. She was assisting plaintiffs in choosing a house to buy, and she received a commission on the sale. [Thus] Dingle’s statements were not idle comments or mere puffery.”