- 10 -
architect. Neither the preconstruction agreement nor the
contract contains such a representation. Moreover, even assuming
arguendo that Mr. Green at one time misrepresented Mr. Cabber as
an architect, we would have no basis to conclude that such a
misrepresentation was coupled with an intent to cheat or deceive
petitioners.9
Nor does the fact that specifications in the construction
plans might not have been met shed light on Mr. Green’s intent;
it is certainly not determinative evidence of fraud on Mr.
Green’s part. At most, Mr. Green’s failure to carry out the
construction plans constitutes a breach of contract or negligence
on his part. Petitioners’ position ignores the fact that, in
addition to Mr. Green, there were at least nine other parties
involved in the design and construction of petitioners’ house.10
Because so many parties were involved in designing and building
petitioners’ house, any fraud perpetrated by Mr. Green would
likely have involved some or all of those other parties. If Mr.
Green had intended to deceive petitioners through a scheme of
such proportions, we would expect that petitioners would present
9 In their reply brief, petitioners assert that Mr. Cabber
was providing architectural services in violation of the New
Mexico Architectural Act. In our view, the veracity of that
allegation has no bearing on whether Mr. Green defrauded
petitioners.
10 Petitioners’ civil suit was against Mr. Green and those
nine other parties.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008