Humber/Ontario Real Estate Course 4 Exam Practice

If a salesperson works in winter conditions and assures the buyer of minor stress cracks in a pool deck, but turns out they were faultier, what is the legal outcome?

1. The seller should take responsibility

2. The weather must be considered first

3. The salesperson did not use best efforts to avoid error

4. The pool expert should be consulted

The correct answer is: The salesperson did not use best efforts to avoid error

The reasoning behind the choice that the salesperson did not use best efforts to avoid error is grounded in the obligation of real estate professionals to act with reasonable care and diligence. When a salesperson provides assurances regarding a property issue, such as minor stress cracks in a pool deck, it is expected that they perform due diligence to verify the accuracy of such claims. If the cracks turn out to be more serious than represented, this indicates a lapse in their responsibility to offer informed advice and to ensure that potential buyers are fully aware of the property's condition. In this scenario, the salesperson's assurance could lead a buyer to make a decision based on incomplete or inaccurate information. The legal outcome pertains to the principle that professionals in real estate must exercise a duty of care, and failure to do so can result in liability for any misrepresentation or negligence. This principle highlights the importance of transparency and accuracy in real estate transactions. Consideration of factors like weather or consulting a pool expert, while potentially relevant, does not directly address the salesperson's responsibility for ensuring accurate representations are made to the buyer. Furthermore, placing the onus on the seller would not be appropriate, as the salesperson's role involves advising the buyer—making them accountable for the accuracy of their assertions. Thus, the focus