This assignment contributes to the following Basic and Advanced Learning Objectives for this Module: Identify the remedies typically available to agree parties when a real estate contract is breached. Identify the circumstances under which a person would be allowed to avoid or resume performance of a real estate contract. Discuss the extent to which the legal system should protect parties to a contract to purchase and sell real estate. Before completing this assignment, you should have completed the quizzes for this Module. Read chapter 7 pages 263-266 and Stambovsky v. Ackley on page 271-273. In this case, a lower court (in New York the trial court is the "Supreme Court") dismissed a complaint filed by a purchaser who sued after learning that the home he had contracted to purchase was haunted. In this appeal, the Appellate Division considers whether the purchaser should be provided with equitable relief in the form of rescission. Part 1: Identify. The court noted that New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor. In this part of the assignment, you will define that doctrine and some of the key points made by the court in the Stambovsky case. Use the language of the court to complete the following sentences: With respect to transactions in real estate, New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes Normally, some affirmative Where a condition which has been created by the seller Any other outcome places upon the buyer No practical purpose is served To the contrary Part 2: Apply. The court decided to allow the buyers to seek rescission of the contract. Explain how the court applied the rules you stated above to the facts of this case to reach that conclusion. Type your response here: Part 3: Apply. What if the facts were different? What if, instead of suing because they found out that the house they had contracted to purchase was haunted, the buyers had sued because the property had been advertised as being 6 acres, but was, in fact, only 3.6 acres? A survey disclosed the accurate acreage, but the buyers never asked to see it. In this part of the assignment, you will compare this to the situation in Stambovsky and to the property tax example on page 264. The property tax example is in the paragraph immediately below the Case in Point; it is not the Case in Point. Why did the court allow the buyer in Stambovsky to rescind the contract? Why might the purchaser in the property tax example on page 264 not be allowed to back out of the contract? Is the example about the acreage more closely aligned to the property tax example or to the condition in Stembovsky? Explain. Should a court allow the buyers to rescind the contract in the acreage example? Why, or why not?