Clagett v. Dacy case brief summary F: TC concluded that nu such duty exsited
In Auction procedure, attorneys failed to follow the proper procedure so that their clients (the debtors) could keep their property.
Bidders sue the attorneys
TC concluded that no such duty existed btw attorneys and bidders I: Whether Attorney has duty to person who is outside the atty-client relationship. R: Attorney has no duty to person who is outside the atty-client relationship.
His duty is to their client. A: Attorneys were engaged to represent the mortgagee, not the bidders, whose interest would likely be in conflict with that of
the mortgagee. The mortgagee’s economic interest, and legal obligation, is to secure the highest possible price for the property,
whereas the bidders’ goal is to pay as little as possible. It is evident, in that circumstance, that an attorney could not lawfully
represent both the mortgagee and the bidder in the transaction. C: affirmed Co: GR: Unless you are in privity to contract, in general cannot sue based on contract (Major Exception is manufacturer customer
relationship, and other cases based on each circumstances)
I have often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook.
All the information on this site is constantly updated and edited. Furthermore, if you have any outlines you want to share, so that others, free of charge, may benefit, please send those to be posted here. Likewise, if you have case briefs you would like to share, please send them to [email protected].
Please keep in mind that this site makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the cases listed here or the current status of law. These cases are derived from class notes and laws change over time. If you have any questions about these materials, or any other legal questions, you should consult an attorney who is a member of the bar of the state you reside in.