Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Under the principle of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover damages from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. . The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fra
Drennan v. Star Paving Company, 51 Cal. 2d 409 (1958), was a California Supreme Court case in which the court held that a party who has detrimentally relied on an offer that is revoked prior to acceptance may assert promissory estoppel to recover damages. [1]
In construction contracting, a latent defect is defined as a defect which exists at the time of acceptance but cannot be discovered by a reasonable inspection. [2]In the 1864 US case of Dermott v Jones, the latent defect lay in the soil on which a property had been built, giving rise to problems which subsequently made the house "uninhabitable and dangerous".
4.3 French Bank of California v. First National Bank of Louisville ... Money damages. Liquidated, stipulated, ... Traditionally this is caveat emptor ...
In other words, the plaintiff only needed to prove causation and damages. [8] Common law courts began to shift towards a no-liability regime for products (except for cases of fraud or breach of express warranty) by developing the doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) in the early 1600s. [9]
At least in the United States, the principle of caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") was held for many years to govern sales. As the idea of an implied warranty of habitability began to find purchase, however, issues like the stigma attached to a property based on acts, "haunting", or criminal activity began to make their way into legal precedents.
Caveat emptor Chandelor v Lopus (1603) 79 ER 3 [ 1 ] is a famous case in the common law of England . [ 2 ] It stands for the distinction between warranties and mere affirmations and announced the rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware).
Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California, 60 Cal 2d 92, 383 P2d 441 (1963) (Mr. Tunkl's wife sued for damages after her husband was admitted to a charitable hospital after signing a waiver for any negligence and died in the course of an operation. Tobriner J held that the exemption was invalid on the ground that Mr. Tunkl has far ...