Funny thing.
When this thread re-appeared a couple of days ago, I looked up the name of the CAR atty who filed to un-publish this case.
I emailed asking why he took that course of action.
So he just called me.
We chatted for about 10 minutes.
His position was basically that the broadness of the language in the decision undercut confidentiality requirements for listing agents.
In other words, he felt that the broadly defined requirement of disclosure prior to offer meant that future courts could find that there was no expectation of confidentiality for sellers about material fact (again, prior to the initial offer).
I disagree with his position but he has a point.
Listing agents are currently held to rigorous confidentiality requirements prior to offer, and rigorous disclosure after the acceptance of that offer.
Incidentally, he felt that the decision for the plaintiff was fair and correct (or that is what I understood)even though he found the opinion’s broadness unhelpful.
