Fact Pattern: A buyer and seller are in a pending sales transaction. The buyer inserted into the contract that the “patio furniture” would be included in the sale. Before close of escrow, the seller removed many pieces of furniture from the backyard area, valued at about $11,000. When questioned, the seller claimed the furniture he took was not located on the patio, but on the pool deck and grassy areas.

Multiple Choice Question: Is the seller obligated to return or credit the buyer for the furniture he removed from the backyard area? Pick the best answer:

A. Yes.
B. No.
C. It depends.
D. We don’t know.

Answer: Answer A is the best answer – oh sorry, no, it isn’t. April Fools! If only the law would be that easy!

Unfortunately, neither Answer A nor B is the best answer. The term, “patio furniture,” as used in this context, is likely to be deemed legally ambiguous, which means that it can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way. One reasonable interpretation is that “patio furniture” is synonymous to any “outdoor furniture,” in which case, the seller is obligated to the buyer (Answer A). Another reasonable interpretation, however, is that “patio furniture” is furniture located on the patio, like how the living room furniture in a home is generally understood to be the furniture located in the living room (Answer B).

Answer C has merit, but it’s not the best answer. When faced with an ambiguous term, a judge or arbitrator may look at the surrounding circumstances. Perhaps the answer depends on whether this house even has a patio, or how the backyard area is precisely laid out. Perhaps the seller was present when the buyer pointed to the items to be included in the sale.

Answer D is the correct answer. We can try to advocate on behalf of our client. But if the buyer and seller cannot reach an agreement about the “patio furniture,” it’ll be up to the buyer to decide whether to pursue a legal claim against the seller, most likely in small claims court for up to $10,000. We do not know whether the buyer will present his or her case well in court, or what the judge will ultimately decide.

This situation is a great reminder for agents to always try to clarify any wording that might be ambiguous or confusing. For example, we may have avoided this dispute altogether if the buyer had provided an itemized list of furniture to be included, or added a description, such as “14 total pieces.” Even using the term, “all outdoor furniture,” may have been better than “patio furniture.”

-Thank you to Kirk Hoffman (Studio City Office) for suggesting this week’s legal tip.

Copyright© 2019 Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties (BHHSCP). All rights reserved. Any unauthorized reproduction or use of this material is strictly prohibited. This information is believed to be accurate as of April 1, 2019. It is not intended as a substitute for legal advice in individual situations, and is not intended to nor does it create a standard of care for real estate professionals.