- 9 -
Petitioners also argue that because Mr. Green himself had no
qualifications in any trade, Mr. Green’s promotional materials
fraudulently reflected that he would personally supervise the
construction of their house. We disagree. Even though Mr. Green
has admitted that he lacked the technical ability to perform many
of the tasks performed by the subcontractors, there is a
fundamental flaw in petitioners’ argument. The fact that Mr.
Green, a homebuilder, could not do the job himself does not
render fraudulent his statement that he would supervise the work
to ensure quality control. Petitioners have not alleged, and the
record does not reflect, that Mr. Green ever made a false
statement of fact regarding his technical skills.7 We will not
find fraud by conjecture.8
Petitioners’ contention that Mr. Green defrauded them by
misrepresenting that Mr. Cabber was an architect is equally
unavailing. Aside from petitioners’ testimony, there is no
evidence that Mr. Green ever represented that Mr. Cabber was an
7 For example, Mr. Green never represented that he was a
licensed electrician, plumber, or carpenter, etc. The fact that
petitioners might have incorrectly assumed that Mr. Green
possessed certain technical skills does not render fraudulent any
of Mr. Green’s representations.
8 In the end, it is telling that petitioners would have us
infer fraud from Mr. Green’s promotional materials when those
promotional materials contain clear factual statements regarding
Mr. Green that petitioners fail to challenge and that, if proven
false, might lend significant support to an argument that Mr.
Green committed fraud. For example, Mr. Green represented that
he had “won five major awards over the years,” including State
Achievement in Building Excellence awards in two categories.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008