Stambovsky v. Ackley New York, at the time, adhered to property law doctrine of "caveat emptor". The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision regarding the rescission action, however, as it went on to note that "haunting" was not a condition that a buyer or potential buyer of real property can and should be able to ascertain upon reasonable inspection of the property. According to the court, though the doctrine of "caveat emptor" would normally operate to bar a rescission action, causing seller to have no duty to disclose information about the property to be sold (but also preventing the seller from affirmatively
Latin syntax like the following, there is potential for confusion, since the "quīn" clause, though positive in Latin, is translated in English with a negative: In the following context, the words after "quīn" express not what actually happened but what very nearly happened: The pronoun "quī" 'who' or 'which', when followed by a subjunctive, can mean 'a person such as' (generic): It can also mean 'in order to' (purpose): Another meaning is 'in view of the fact that' (giving an explanation), as in the following example, said jokingly of a consul who was elected on the last day of the year: Another