Week 4 - Boyle v McGlynn Discussion - Week 4 Group 2

The Boyle v. McGlynn case study was a very interesting one to read, more so considering the fact that it had to do with purchasing a piece of county property. A month after purchasing the 133-acre piece of land ,Boyle (plaintiff) found out that plans were in the works for the construction of large wind turbines on the adjacent property. The plaintiff was surprised to find out this was taking place, considering the fact that the defendant (McGlynn) assured Boyle that their parcel was protected, secluded from the rest of the community, and a tiptop and tantalizing place to be -- as demonstrated by the brochure the defendant provided the plaintiff. What I don't understand is why didn't McGlynn inform Boyle about the property backing up to one of the largest areas of undeveloped land in the county? Wouldn't that insinuate that unless the parcel and the surrounding areas are protected, that the land would at some point be developed for environmental, residential, or commercial purposes? On the other hand, I could understand McGlynn's point about the plaintiffs needing to do their homework to be informed of the changes to the land and the surrounding environment.

The plaintiff might not currently live in Otsego County, but that does not mean that they cannot enlighten themselves on the situation. Nonetheless, I think that the court made the right decision by siding in favor with the plaintiff in seeking rescission.  The defendant wasn't upfront and truthful and should have to pay damages for alleged fraud and misrepresentation. The doctrine of caveat emptor is a completely new to me. I had no idea that the defendant had the right to withhold any information concerning the property in an arm’s length real estate transaction. Overall, I found this case to be very informative with a lot of moving parts and promises. If this was considered to be a verbal contract, I might have had to second guess the court's decision to completely side with the plaintiff.