Connection lost
Server error
JOHNSON v. DAVIS Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: After sellers misrepresented the condition of a leaky roof, the buyers sought to rescind the purchase contract. The Florida Supreme Court abandoned the doctrine of caveat emptor for residential real estate, imposing a duty on sellers to disclose known, material defects not readily observable by the buyer.
Legal Significance: This landmark case abrogated the doctrine of caveat emptor in Florida residential real estate sales. It established an affirmative duty for sellers to disclose known, material defects that are not readily observable, aligning Florida with the modern trend in American property law.
JOHNSON v. DAVIS Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Davises entered into a contract to purchase the Johnsons’ home for $310,000, paying an initial $5,000 deposit. Before paying an additional $26,000 deposit, Mrs. Davis noticed peeling plaster and ceiling stains. Mr. Johnson affirmatively represented that these were minor, corrected issues and that there had never been any problems with the roof. Relying on these statements, the Davises paid the additional deposit. Shortly after, a heavy rain revealed severe, widespread leaks, with water “gushing” into the house. The Davises’ experts concluded the roof was inherently defective and required a complete replacement costing $15,000, while the Johnsons’ experts suggested a minor repair for under $1,000 would suffice. The Davises sued for rescission of the contract and return of their full deposit, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The Johnsons counterclaimed for the deposit as liquidated damages. The trial court awarded the Davises only the $26,000 portion of the deposit, which the appellate court modified to a full refund.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a seller of a home have a duty to disclose to the buyer known facts that materially affect the value of the property when such facts are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer?
Yes. The court held that the Johnsons’ affirmative misrepresentations constituted fraud and, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conse
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a seller of a home have a duty to disclose to the buyer known facts that materially affect the value of the property when such facts are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer?
Conclusion
Johnson v. Davis is a seminal case in property law that formally Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
Legal Rule
Where a seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi u
Legal Analysis
The court provided two independent grounds for its holding: fraudulent misrepresentation and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Abrogates the doctrine of caveat emptor for the sale of residential