4. After making a visual inspection, buyer bought property from seller and proceeded to build a home. When the possibility of soil slippage soon became apparent, construction was halted. Buyer sued seller to rescind the sale. Soil expert testified that the property was not suitable for the construction of a residence. Seller was unaware of the stability hazard of the soil when the sale was transacted. Could buyer rescind

The buyer could not rescind the contract.

Since there was no deceit on the part of the seller, the buyer should have taken reasonable care, according to the doctrine of caveat emptor, before concluding the contract.  This would have forced him to undertake a soil test to determine its suitability.

Some questions to ask the buyer are: did he communicate with the seller about the suitability of the property for a residential house?

Can the buyer prove that he was reasonably induced to make the contract because it was difficult to discover the unsuitability?  This is not the case.

Was the buyer induced by the seller's assurances of no defects?  The seller was not aware of the stability hazard of the soil, so he could not have assured the buyer of no defects.

Did the buyer discover the defects within a reasonable time?  This was not likely.

Explanation:

Under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, for a buyer to revoke or rescind, "he must show (1) the goods failed to conform to the contract and (2) it substantially impaired the value of the goods (this is a question of fact). "

The buyer can rescind the contract if he can show he accepted the property knowing that the seller would cure it and this did not happen.

answer; is usually (less than) the socially optimal level of consumption;

hi i’m a student too and i’ve had this app downalodes for a few weeks people do answer it you just gotta be patient and what is your question + subject i’ll you?