Friday, October 10, 2014

Clagett v. Dacy case brief summary


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)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.