Sold a small business two months ago; Buyer now wants to sue me for misrepresentation

[Throwawayx]

deleted...

 

[adjusterjack]

There is no "wants to sue" there is only sue or not sue.

If you have not been served with a summons and complaint you are free to ignore the threats and stop talking to him.

 

[Throwawayx]

There is no "wants to sue" there is only sue or not sue.

If you have not been served with a summons and complaint you are free to ignore the threats and stop talking to him.

I added some detail to the post. I've been ignoring him, and was just told that I'd be hearing from his lawyer. Any other thoughts?

 

[Zigner]

I added some detail to the post. I've been ignoring him, and was just told that I'd be hearing from his lawyer. Any other thoughts?

I think you haven't actually heard from his attorney, have you?

 

[xylene]

The renewal of the lease was predicated on not being a PITA tenant, as you indicated, so you have very little risk of being successfully sued.

I do think the landlord is being a jerk with the lease assignment, but that's not your problem.

I also think it is weird for the landlord to be CCing youabout private business of the tenant that doesn't concern you. You should be careful there.

 

[adjusterjack]

I added some detail to the post. I've been ignoring him, and was just told that I'd be hearing from his lawyer. Any other thoughts?

Same as my other thought.

Stop talking to the whiner. Stop talking to the landlord. Stop talking. Period.

So far, all you're getting is hot air.

If you want to succumb to fear and give him half his money back, you are free to do that.

Otherwise, wait and see.

Even if you are contacted by a lawyer, you response should be "No comment, good bye." Then hang up.

One more time. Until you get served a summons and complaint, there is nothing to worry about.

When and if you get served, that's when you worry and hire a lawyer.

 

[Throwawayx]

I think you haven't actually heard from his attorney, have you?

I have not.

The renewal of the lease was predicated on not being a PITA tenant, as you indicated, so you have very little risk of being successfully sued.

I do think the landlord is being a jerk with the lease assignment, but that's not your problem.

I also think it is weird for the landlord to be CCing youabout private business of the tenant that doesn't concern you. You should be careful there.

I thought it was weird too. Thanks

Same as my other thought.

Stop talking to the whiner. Stop talking to the landlord. Stop talking. Period.

So far, all you're getting is hot air.

If you want to succumb to fear and give him half his money back, you are free to do that.

Otherwise, wait and see.

Even if you are contacted by a lawyer, you response should be "No comment, good bye." Then hang up.

One more time. Until you get served a summons and complaint, there is nothing to worry about.

When and if you get served, that's when you worry and hire a lawyer.

I'll wait and see. Thank you.

 

[latigo]

Florida. Buyer wanted reassurance that they would be able to renew lease once it's over in 2019. Based on prior experience with the landlord (successfully renewing the lease eight years ago),

I told them that they wouldn't have any problems renewing as long as they didn't breach the lease, paid their rent on time each month, etc. .

If you end up defending an action to rescind the sale, it will be because you failed to keep your mouth shut. And the above underlined statement will come back to haunt you.

How it plays out will depend on how effective the buyer's attorney is at convincing the court that his client had the right to rely on your representations. Representations that were obviously made for the purpose of inducing the sale.

 

[adjusterjack]

How it plays out will depend on how effective the buyer's attorney is at convincing the court that his client had the right to rely on your representations. Representations that were obviously made for the purpose of inducing the sale.

Also depends on how strong the sale contract was, i.e. "As Is" "no warranties" "no guarantees" "this contract is the entire agreement, anything said outside the contract doesn't count," you know, stufff like that.

 

[latigo]

Also depends on how strong the sale contract was, i.e. "As Is" "no warranties" "no guarantees" "this contract is the entire agreement, anything said outside the contract doesn't count," you know, stufff [sic] like that.

I assume you are referring to the maxim that all previous agreements and understanding of the parties are deemed merged into the final document. But that exclusionary principle of contract law has to do with the essence or terms of the contract. It has nothing to do with rescission of contract because of alleged misrepresentation.