Case 21.2: Vagias v. Woodmont Properties, 894 A.2d 68 (N.J. Super. 2006) (p. 676) Facts: Vagias hired Dingle as his realtor and told her he was in the market to buy a house in Montville Township, N.J. because of the favorable reputation of the township's schools. Dingle showed Vagias a house in a development called "Woodmont Court at Montville," and when Vagias inquired as to whether this house was located within the jurisdictional limits of Montville Township, both Dingle and the representative of the builder (neither of whom were familiar with the township boundaries) assured Vagias that the house was. Vagias purchased the house and later sued to have the sale rescinded on the basis of misrepresentation concerning location when he attempted to enroll his son in the school system and learned his house was actually located outside of Montville Township limits. Issue: Can Vagias have the sale rescinded even though the misrepresentation by the realtor and the builder was not intentional? Ruling: Yes. Under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Dingle's misrepresentation need not be an intentional misrepresentation. Dingle and the builder knew of Vagias's concerns and made an affirmative misrepresentation, which is sufficient to prevail in a New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act case. Answers to case questions: 1. Had Dingle not known that Vagias was specifically looking for a home in Montville Township, yet had still made her statements, would the outcome of the case have been different? 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, had still been able to send his son to a highly rated elementary school, and the only detriment imposed upon him was a lower social status due to the location of the home, how would that affect your analysis? 1. The agreement between Vagias and the seller of the home located in Westmont