Which of the Following Was the Result on Appeal in Manderville

question 59

Multiple Choice

Which of the following was the result on appeal in Manderville v. PCG&S Group, Inc., the case in the text in which the defendant property broker claimed that the plaintiffs could not recover on their claim for intentional misrepresentation because the plaintiffs did not diligently investigate the legal condition of the property and also because the agreement between the parties contained an exculpatory clause releasing the defendant from any understandings not incorporated into the contract?

• A) That the plaintiffs could not recover because the plaintiff failed to meet the obligation of inspecting the legal condition of the property.
• B) That the plaintiffs could not recover based on the exculpatory clause in the contract.
• C) That the plaintiffs could not recover because there was nothing wrong with the property, such as environmental contamination.
• D) That the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed to trial and that an exculpatory clause attempting to render a defendant not liable for fraud is void as a matter of public policy.
• E) That the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed to trial on the property issue only if they could first establish that they did no read the exculpatory clause.

---

Definitions:

Type I Error

The mistake of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true.

Null Hypothesis

The default hypothesis that there is no effect or no difference, and any observed effect is due to sampling variability.

Type I Error

The probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true, also known as a false positive.

Type II Error

A statistical mistake of failing to reject a false null hypothesis; also known as a false negative.