Friday, October 10, 2014

Clagett v. Dacy case brief summary

Clagett v. Dacy case brief summary

F: The trial court concluded that no such duty existed.
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 a duty to a person who is outside the at-client relationship.

R: Attorney has no duty to the person who is outside the attorney-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, one cannot sue based on contract (a major exception is in the manufacturer customer relationship, and other cases based on each circumstances)

Support us by:
Visiting: to rid yourself of that social media addition.

Checking out our store on Etsy:

No comments:

Post a Comment