Will Brokaw be successful if he sues Hauser in negligence? Please Explain your answer.

John Brokaw was interested in purchasing an apartment building. He was, however, very concerned about the price. Since he did not trust the revenue figures that the vendor had provided, he hiredLonnie Hauser, a property value appraiser. Brokaw explained in great detail that he needed to know,as precisely as possible, how much the apartments would generate in rent. Hauser's final report indicated that the building was worth $1 400 000. Brokaw accepted that information and purchased the property at that price. He soon discovered, however, that the building was actually worth considerably less. The tenants were all on social assistance. The basic rent that the government was willing to pay was set at $325 per month, and each apartment contained two tenants. Hauser therefore had simply assumed that each apartment would produce $650 per month. In fact, however, whenever the two tenants were related, then the government set the rent at $520 per month. A number of apartments were occupied by married couples. As a result, the actual value of the property was $1000000. Hauser nevertheless says that he should not be held responsible because he had reasonably assumed that the same rent would apply to every apartment.

Questions that courts ask when determining whether for negligent statements:

Was it reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer a loss by relying upon the defendant's statement?

Serious Occasion: A statement may be communicated on a serious occasionit is often reasonable to rely upon information that is provided during a business meeting, but not during an informal party.

Inquiry: The defendant's statement may be made in response to an inquirya person who is specifically asked for information should realize that the answer may be relied upon.

Financial Benefit: The defendant may have received a financial benefit in exchange for the statementreasonable people do not usually pay for information unless they intend to rely upon it.

Statement of Fact: The defendant may have communicated a state- ment of fact, or an opinion or prediction based on fact, rather than a purely personal opinionit is often reasonable to rely upon a professional evaluation of certain stocks, but not upon a prediction as to the outcome of a horse race.

In contrast, one factor reduces the likelihood that a duty of care will be imposed:

Disclaimer: The defendant may have issued a disclaimer along with its statementa reasonable person does not generally rely upon a statement if the speaker was unwilling to assume responsibility for it.

Intended Audience: The defendant must have known that the plain- tiff, either individually or as a member of a defined group, might rely upon the statement.

Intended Purpose: The plaintiff must have relied upon that statement for its intended purpose.