A: XYZ Shell Corp (no connection to who is actually effectively buying and coming into control of this land)?
Obviously your argument will be "it's not false that XYZ Shell Corp is buying it," and sure, but it's obviously misleading in a way that affects the transaction, as it is specifically designed to do.
I'd say the primary concern is not with the purchasing party exercising their right not to disclose their intent post-sale. It's that they're intentionally masking their identity to prevent unwelcome influence on the transaction (i.e. If you know I'm rich, you're going to jack up the price.)
I think the argument is really over whether parties on either side are entitled to privacy/anonymity. The answer seems to be 'yes' in the form of typically legal shell corps, anonymous LLCs, and the like.
I agree that the heart it's about privacy, and what compelling reason we would have as a society that would supersede privacy.
I don't think the idea that benefiting one party's negotiation is such a compelling interest. In the case of Disney, it sounds good because it benefits the perceived Underdog, but It can just as easily cut the other way, especially if you extended to how bad you want something as some people in the thread advocate.
Maybe you want to buy a specific house cuz it's next to the Medical Center where you get treatment. That would probably influence how much you're willing to pay.
Fair prices when a buyer and seller agreed to as long as no one's lying. The fair price has nothing to do with how much money the buyer or seller make more lose.
I think consent and honesty make something Fair. Nobody has refuted this and The only other counter argument I've seen is that full disclosure would mean the seller gets more money. What is getting more money have to do with fair.?
I think you succinctly summed up the Crux of it. The kind of begs the question of what information is relevant. When I apply for a job, I certainly don't tell the recruiter the minimum salary I would accept. When I negotiate for a house, I don't tell them my maximum theoretical offer. These information asymmetries obviously benefit me at their expense.
When I buy a 20 cent bolt for my car, I don't tell them that it's worth $20,000 to me because my car won't run without it
Q: Who is buying this land?
A: XYZ Shell Corp (no connection to who is actually effectively buying and coming into control of this land)?
Obviously your argument will be "it's not false that XYZ Shell Corp is buying it," and sure, but it's obviously misleading in a way that affects the transaction, as it is specifically designed to do.