Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,600+ case briefs...

Petrillo v. Bachenberg

Supreme Court of New York
655 A.2d 1354 (1995)


Bachenberg (defendant), a real estate broker, went in with a partner to purchase land from Rohrer. Bachenberg received reports from Rohrer’s attorney, Herrigal, describing the results of previously conducted percolation tests. Local regulations required proof of two successful percolation tests as a prerequisite for installation of a septic system. Herrigal gave Bachenberg two pages of test reports. The first page showed only one successful result out of 22 first-round tests. The second page represented a composite report, prepared by Herrigal, which listed the first successful test along with another successful result obtained during a second round of testing. Viewed separately, the second page appeared to indicate that two out eight percolation tests were successful when, in fact, only two out of 30 were successful. Bachenberg listed the property for sale and included only the second page of the test results in the sale package he gave to Petrillo (plaintiff). Herrigal represented Bachenberg in negotiations with Petrillo and drafted a purchase agreement that allowed Petrillo 45 days to conduct independent percolation tests and rescind the contract. Petrillo signed and gave Bachenberg a $16,000 down payment. After getting unsatisfactory percolation test results, Petrillo sought to rescind the contract and demanded the return of her down payment. Bachenberg refused and accused Petrillo of breaching the contract. Petrillo sued both Bachenberg and Herrigal for breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation. The trial court concluded that Herrigal did not owe any duty to Petrillo under the circumstances and dismissed the claims against him. Herrigal appealed, and the appellate court ruled in favor of Petrillo. Herrigal petitioned for review by the state supreme court.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Pollock, J.)

Dissent (Garibaldi, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial