Maybe Not In The USA

Comment from a reader on "Government Provided Consumer Protection":

The Comment "No legal remedy for SBMA Leaseholders" misrepresents the U.S. Supreme Court case of Laidlaw v. Organ. The issue in that case was whether the seller of a product could fail to disclose information in his possession which affected the value, and hence price of the product, when the buyer specifically asked the seller if the seller knew of information which affected the value of the product. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure of the seller to disclose, when specifically asked if he had information in his possession affecting the value of the product, was fraudulent conduct on the part of the seller. Organ v. Laidlaw IS authority for the proposition that a seller need not volunteer information in his possession affecting the value of a product, if the buyer does NOT inquire if the seller has any such information. The Poster of the Comment apparently believes that Organ v. Laidlaw stands for the proposition that a buyer cannot rely on a seller's representations, including a seller's failure to disclose knowlege in his possession. Instead, the Poster apparently believes that Organ v. Laidlaw holds that a buyer must independently verify the truth of a seller's representations, including the truth of a state of facts that the seller implies by his nondisclosure. The Posters understanding of Organ v. Laidlaw and caveat emptor is incorrect. Even under principles of caveat emptor, as set forth in Organ v. Laidlaw, SBMA leaseholders are entitled to rely on representations made by SBMA, including the omission of SBMA to set forth the title registry fees and survey fees in their leases with SBMA.

[The Subic Bulletin] While we appreciate your commendatory on US law, we can't see why you believe this to be relevant here. Welcome to the Philippines.