THE CASE OF LIGHTLE V. REAL ESTATE COMMISION

THECASE OF LIGHTLE V. REAL ESTATE COMMISION

Readcase Lightle v. Real Estate Commission

Deceptionsbusiness dealings have led to the breach of contract to one or moreparty. Under normal circumstances, the reason for deception invarious businesses dealing is to increase the probability of makingprofits. All this is done at the expense of potential customer whosetime and resources are used to gamble. However, under the law it isillegal to deceive potential customers on the availability on variousitems in the market such treatment results giving misleadinginformation to the public (Miller, 2013). Furthermore, that is apunishable crime under the law. Additionally, the individuals thatare involved in committing a given crime are held responsibleirrespective of whether they are acting on behave of third parties.An ideal example of a case that involves the above principles is theLightle v. Real Estate commission.

Thecase involves a potential customer to a home that they had given anoffer to buy to selling parties agent named Craig Lightle[ CITATION Mil13 l 1033 ].Theclient learnt that their offer was acting as a back up to anotheroffer that had been made the Williamses. The client that had made anoffer prior to the knowledge of an existing agreement was namedArlene Seeley. She took up the matter and reported to the AlaskaReal Estate Commission. A case was filled at the courts of law listedto and determined. Lightle was found guilty of giving misleadinginformation and convicted. He was found guilty since the house thatwas being sold to Arlene was already on offer to the Williamses. As amatter of fact they were in the process of acquiring a loan for thehome purchase. It is therefore wrong for the selling agent to accepttwo differing offers as it amounts to breach of contract to one partywhose accepted offer is dishonored (Herring, 2014). The givenexplanation of the case Cleary shows that the selling homes agent hadintended to deceive the potential buyer and that is punishable by thelaw .The selling party agent also bears the whole burden of the lawrepercussions of the law. This is due to the fact that they oversawall thetransactions including listing of the home on the marketlist as available. The action was in total breach of law since thehome was already on offer to another party and the selling agentought to have acted in good faith to the customers interests(Jennings, 2012).

References

Jennings,M. (2012).&nbspBusiness:Its legal, ethical, and global environment.Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Miller,R. L. R., Hollowell, W. E., &amp Miller, R. L. R. (2008).&nbspBusinesslaw: Text &amp exercises.Mason, Ohio: Thomson/West

Miller, R. L. (2013). The legal environment today: Business in its ethical, regulatory, e-commerce, and global setting. Mason, Ohio:: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Herring,J. (2014).&nbspCriminallaw: Text, cases, and materials.