The North Carolina Court of Appeals in a recent ruling affirmed a lower court decision to award damages to certain purchasers of real estate who claimed that they were told by real estate agents that there was an 83/4% interest rate ceiling on the loan that they were to assume when, in fact, the loan was subject to a rate as high as 91/2%.

According to the Court's ruling, the real estate agents knew of an existing agreement between the previous owners and the savings and loan association whereby the interest rate of their loan could be increased as high as 91/2% if prevailing interest rates rose. However, the agents failed to inform the purchasers of this agreement. In the opinion of the Court, the purchasers "unquestionably suffered a foreseeable monetary loss as a result of the breach (of contract)."

Does a requirement that subdivision homeowners selling their homes list them exclusively with the developer/broker, or by an open listing, under penalty of denial of country club membership to purchasers constitute an unfair method of competition or an unfair trade practice?

In the opinion of the North Carolina Attorney General's Office, it does. The Attorney General, in response to a question posed by the Real Estate Commission, concluded that such practices constitute both an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice injuring both competitors and consumers.