If I found myself in the ethical dilemma that George Nash found himself in, my decision will run contrary to his. The basis of such choice will be a careful ethical consideration and analysis of the various factors of the scenario.
Indeed the laws of the state do not require the disclosure of hazardous substances on commercial properties for as long as there has not been a fraudulent misstatement of the condition of the property. However, legal matters are not the only basis when considering the ethical merits of the situation. One important thought that will run through my head is the possible effects of the toxic materials on the future tenants of the property. Yes, we are not the developers but somehow I would think that we are directly involved for we are the people who sold the property for development.
I believe that the most ethical decision that could be made will be to inform Fledgling of the possible presence of toxic materials. I will ask them to delay the purchase so as to allow proper tests to be conducted to determine the extent of the damage and the possible effects that the said materials could have on human life. Such testing will tantamount to the ethical fact gathering which is a part of ethical decision-making.
The continued existence of DAC is a foremost consideration. However, human lives are more valuable. It will no look good for DAC if the public found out that the said company was responsible for selling a property with hazardous substances in it. Not only will this ruin the image of the company, it might even completely run the company to the ground. Also read about Ashbury Guitar case study
As such, it will be my decision not to push through with the sale and instead, postpone it until further