medium · National Real Estate Exam disclosures

Under the concept of 'notice,' how does a court view a material fact that an agent *should* have known through reasonable care and diligence, but did not actually discover?

1. The knowledge may be imputed to the principal as if the agent had discovered it, due to the agent's duty of reasonable care.
2. The court will impute knowledge only if the agent formally holds the title of broker-in-charge rather than a licensed salesperson.
3. The principal is excused from liability because the agent's negligence is treated as a separate personal matter.
4. Knowledge is imputed only if the agent has actual, subjective, first-hand awareness of that specific material fact.

Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →