REO bought by listing agent below outside offer!

[tranquility]

If you read the case, you will find the losing argument for the issue of:

A. Is compensable damage a requisite element of legal fraud or may nominal and punitive damages be awarded in the absence of compensatory damages?

is yours.

You'll also find how the court determined this in the discussion. They rephrased the issue as:

The initial question to be considered is whether compensatory damages are an essential element of legal fraud. If compensatory damages are an essential element of the cause of action, the claim must be dismissed despite the fact that the plaintiff has proved all the other elements. On the other hand, if the cause of action is deemed effective even though the plaintiff had not proved his entitlement to compensatory damages, the viability of the cause of action may be the basis of an award of punitive damages. This is because punitive damages may lie provided there is a valid underlying cause of action.

The holding I have already provided.

There were money damages here. Driving takes gas and a phone call takes electricity. But, as the case noted, modernly this is not required. Nominal damage cases are usually brought for two reasons. (As BMW v. Gore limits the value of punitive damages in a nominal damage case.) One, satisfaction. Some are very motivated over an issue and want society to say they are right. Two, injunction. While usually thought of in trespassing cases, injunctions are available for any equitable matter. I wonder if the OP could get an injunction to estop the agent from profiting from his malfeasance?

The reason this may be successful has to do with the misrepresentation/nondisclosure tort measure of damages. Modernly (in these torts), damages tend to not compensate for the plaintiff's loss, but to restore what the defendant has received. Courts look to the inequity of allowing him to retain it, rather than to the damage which the plaintiff has sustained. Sufficient damages have been found where the plaintiff has received property of a different character or condition than promised even if it has the same value, when a transaction proves to be less advantageous than was represented even though there is no actual loss and even where the false statement was important to the plaintiff for reasons personal to himself, not affecting any financial value or profit.