Stambovsky v. Ackley [...] is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent"). The dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine of "caveat emptor" should be strictly applied and would affirm the trial court's dismissal of all of the actions. Displeased by the majority's basis for its holding, the dissent said, "Finally, if the doctrine of caveat emptor is to be discarded, it should be for a reason more substantive than a poltergeist. The existence of a poltergeist is no more binding upon the defendants than it is upon this court." The case generated considerable publicity and area real estate
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