In Carleton v. Tortosa (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 745, an investor hired a real estate agent to represent him in the purchase of two residential properties. The investor signed an agreement disclaiming the agent's duty to give tax advice. (Id. at p. 750.) The investor later incurred a tax liability and sued his agent for negligence and breach of duty. (Ibid.) He offered the testimony of other real estate professionals to support his allegation that the agent was under a legal duty to investigate tax matters, but the trial court sustained the agents objections to the testimony. (Id. at p. 755.) The Third Appellate District affirmed, holding that "expert testimony is incompetent on the predicate question whether the duty exists" because whether a legal duty exists is a question of law for the court to determine. (Ibid.) In Carleton v. Tortosa (1993) after plaintiff had sold two residential rental properties and purchased two others, he was advised by his tax accountant that he owed taxes on the transactions because they did not qualify as tax deferred exchanges under Internal Revenue Code section 1031 (26 U.S.C. 1031) (Carleton, supra, 14 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 749-750). Plaintiff thereafter sued the real estate agent who represented him throughout the transactions, alleging negligence in failing to advise him about the potential adverse tax consequences of the sales, and by failing to structure the transactions as tax-free exchanges under section 1031. (Id. at p. 750.) The agency agreement entered into between plaintiff and the defendant real estate agent contained the warning and disclaimer required by former section 2375, now section 2079.16. In addition, the real estate purchase agreements stated: "A real estate broker or agent is qualified to advise on real estate. If you require legal or tax advice, consult your attorney or accountant." (Carleton, supra, 14 Cal. App. 4th at p. 752.) The purchase agreements further warned, "No representations or recommendations are made by the broker, agents, or employees as to the legal sufficiency, effect, or tax consequences of this document or the transaction relating thereto. These questions are for your attorney and or your accountant." (Ibid.) In affirming summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant real estate agent, the court concluded defendant owed no duty to advise plaintiff concerning the tax consequences of the transactions in question, including the possibility of structuring them to result in a 1031 tax-free exchange. The court noted that in enacting former section 2375, the Legislature had effectuated public policy that persons involved in real estate transactions are expected to obtain their tax advice from someone other than the real estate broker or agent. (Carleton, supra, 14 Cal. App. 4th at p. 758.) In Carleton v. Tortosa (1993) there was no claim of an oral agency agreement. The parties conceded the terms of the agency were set forth in the written listing agreement and purchase and sale documents. (Id. at p. 755.) Those documents expressly provided that the agent was qualified to render advice only on real estate matters, and that if legal or tax advice was desired, a competent professional in those fields should be consulted. (Id. at pp. 755-756.) The reviewing court therefore correctly concluded that the writings negated the principal's claim that the agent had undertaken a contractual duty to provide tax advice on the consequences of the property transfer. (Id. at p. 756.) The Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a real estate broker, concluding the broker had no duty to structure a transaction to minimize the client's tax liability or advise of the broker's lack of expertise with tax-deferred exchanges. The client's claim of duty was negated by the listing agreements and agency disclosure forms which advised the client to read carefully and consult legal or tax professionals.