ODG archive
 

ODG front page

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Search ODG site

   

 

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:00

From: Lewis Klar

Subject: Duty to Warn

 

There are several Canadian cases like this.

But I think Jason's point was to raise the issue as to why they are correct.  A purchaser can arrange for and require disclosure by contract. (Some provinces have Disclosure requirements.)  The issue is why tort law should protect individuals who clearly could have and should protected themselves by contract. This was the Supreme Court of Canada's point in the Design Services case. The subs could have joined with the contractor in submitting a bid, did not, and then sought to use tort to make up for their contractual blunder. The SCC said "no dice". So, if a purchaser buys a house without requiring disclosure of defects, or without inspecting, should tort law say "don't worry", we will do it for you?  Despite years of tort taking over the contractual relation field, Design Services indicates that the tide in Canada may be turning. This I think is a positive development (unless there is a fraudulent concealment).

  

Lewis Klar

 

>>> John McCamus 10/6/2008 12:28 PM >>>

An Ontario (modern) classic is McGrath v. MacLean (1979), 95 D.L.R. (3rd) 144 (Ont. C.A.) (vendor must disclose defects making the premises unfit for human habitation).

 

 


<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>


 

 
Webspace provided by UCC
  »
»
»
»
»
  Comments and suggestions are welcome - contact s.hedley@ucc.ie