Cited by

–01 ¶ 15 (2000) (stating that “an administrative regulation may form the basis for a standard of conduct even where it does not so provide” (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 285 (Am.

it continues, however, the superior court might conclude that ABOR’s administrative policies represented implied terms of Dr. Slater’s employment, akin to personnel manuals that “can become part of employment contracts,” or that these policies represented an actionable standard of conduct based on their purpose, -101 (2000) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 285).2 2 We confine our review to the issues advanced on appeal, and therefore do not address the affirmative defenses that may be adv

is or may be unable to perform”); ¶¶ 12-13, (ability to close goes to heart of transaction, is not confidential information, and requires disclosure to third parties (citations omitted)).

-21, 223-24, ¶¶ 2, 14-15 , -51, 853-54 (2004) (applying Restatement § 324A to find that a duty existed, despite the absence of a doctor-patient relationship, when a doctor detected abnormalities during a pre-employment tuberculosis screening and failed to notify the plaintiff, who subsequently was diagnosed with lung cancer); 100, ¶¶ 1, 11 , 291 (2000) (finding that the Restatement imposed liability on a buyer’s real estate agent for representations made to the seller, while acting on behalf of

-01, ¶¶ 13-15, -92 (2000) (noting common law and regulatory duties).

(buyer must inform seller of buyer’s inability to perform); United Cal.

Dawson’s -100 , -91 (2000), is also misplaced.

Dawson’s -100 , -91 (2000), is also misplaced.

In the trial court, Landlord argued that Grubb & Ellis breached an implied contractual promise to render competent service, Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , and that Grubb & Ellis breached a fiduciary duty owed it, -101 , -92 (2000), therefore entitling it to indemnity under common-law indemnity principles.

-100, ¶¶ 10-12 , -91 (2000) (imposing duty on a purchaser’s real estate agent to deal fairly with sellers); accord Tarasoff v. Bd.

¶29 , , 291 ¶ 13 (2000), we held explicitly that a buyer’s agent in a real estate transaction must disclose to the seller evidence known to him that is material to buyer’s inability to perform.

¶29 ¶13 (2000), we held explicitly that a buyer’s agent in a real estate transaction must disclose to the seller evidence known to him that is material to buyer’s inability to perform.

See, , 99-100 ¶10, , 290-91 ¶ 10 (2000) (purchaser’s real estate agent has duty to disclose purchaser’s financial difficulties to seller); -64 , -28 (1989) (psychiatrist has duty to exercise reasonable care to protect foreseeable victim of patient