P
pcwestbrook
Guest
What is the name of your state? New Jersey
I have been trying to purchase a business (mini-mart and deli) and its property since June 2002 till present. The seller and I finally signed an offer to sell in September 2002. I then secured an SBA loan at which time they began, and completed, the site survey, title search, and Phase I Environmental Study. The environmental study revealed that there was previously a well contaminated with gasoline from an underground tank that was leaking when the property/business was used as a gas station. The seller stated, explicitly in conversation and implied in writing in the signed offer to sale agreement, that he had no knowledge of any environmental issues. Further investigation into the Phase I study reveals that the seller received a letter from the NJ DEP stating the contamination had not been properly rectified and closed out. I also spoke with the DEP investigator and he told me that he spoke directly with the seller as a follow-up to the letter. Therefore, the seller knew of the problem but did not disclose the problem to me until after I had spent time (June 2002 through February 2003) and money ($1600 for the Phase I, $400 for the survey, etc.) trying to close the deal. Subsequently, the seller and I agreed (verbally) that he would pay up to $40,000 to correct the problem and that I would pay for any additional costs. Three weeks ago, the seller told the broker that he decided not to sell the business and property.
Do I have a legal recourse to recoup (1) my direct costs for what I actually spent, and (2) losses of potential income if he had sold the business and property to me as agreed? Further, (1) is the seller obligated to disclose what problems he is aware of prior to me proceeding with the transaction and incurring costs, and (2) can the seller be charged with fraud because he did not disclose the environmental issue (fraud or fraud by deception)? Thank you for your help.
Paul
I have been trying to purchase a business (mini-mart and deli) and its property since June 2002 till present. The seller and I finally signed an offer to sell in September 2002. I then secured an SBA loan at which time they began, and completed, the site survey, title search, and Phase I Environmental Study. The environmental study revealed that there was previously a well contaminated with gasoline from an underground tank that was leaking when the property/business was used as a gas station. The seller stated, explicitly in conversation and implied in writing in the signed offer to sale agreement, that he had no knowledge of any environmental issues. Further investigation into the Phase I study reveals that the seller received a letter from the NJ DEP stating the contamination had not been properly rectified and closed out. I also spoke with the DEP investigator and he told me that he spoke directly with the seller as a follow-up to the letter. Therefore, the seller knew of the problem but did not disclose the problem to me until after I had spent time (June 2002 through February 2003) and money ($1600 for the Phase I, $400 for the survey, etc.) trying to close the deal. Subsequently, the seller and I agreed (verbally) that he would pay up to $40,000 to correct the problem and that I would pay for any additional costs. Three weeks ago, the seller told the broker that he decided not to sell the business and property.
Do I have a legal recourse to recoup (1) my direct costs for what I actually spent, and (2) losses of potential income if he had sold the business and property to me as agreed? Further, (1) is the seller obligated to disclose what problems he is aware of prior to me proceeding with the transaction and incurring costs, and (2) can the seller be charged with fraud because he did not disclose the environmental issue (fraud or fraud by deception)? Thank you for your help.
Paul
Last edited: