So really, whether the warranty is binding on the new owners is more complicated than first glance. The standard seems to be whether or not the manufacturer was able to disclaim warranty to downstream buyers. In this case, the defendant was able to prove that new owners had seen the warranty disclaimer, and as such judge Brown ruled correctly. Funny enough though, the most important legal issue here, applicability of warranty disclaimers, received the least amount of time being argued. The plaintiffs tried at the end to say they hadn't agreed to it, but the defendant showed they had seen it. Buyer beware what documents you accept in purchase agreements.
The real legal issue: is the warranty and the disclaimer transferable to new owners? If these new owners had not ever seen that warranty before, nor had the opportunity to negotiate the warranty, I think they'd have a valid claim the warranty shouldn't apply to them (which is what they were trying to get at saying they hadn't signed it). However, the defendant nailed them in the purchase agreement where that document was included and thus they had accepted it. I guess the lesson here is, when you buy a house, be careful what documents you accept. If the plaintiffs could have said they'd never seen that warranty before, I think they'd have had a case to have it tossed, in which case the common law of warranty of fitness for a particular use would apply.
Unfortunately, when you buy something as complex as a house, you have to watch every detail by yourself, or get an iron-clad warranty or satisfaction clause to take care of any problems found after title passes. Or take the lean with the fat. In this case, there is also the problem that the extent of the defect was not clearly established. If the whole driveway was disappearing into a cloud of dust, the developer/builder would surely have been found liable, if only under a theory of equitable warranty; when you sell a paved driveway, you will be held liable if it turns out effectively not to be a paved driveway but instead an inchoate mass of dust and stone. In this case, we can't exclude the assessment that what are being presented as defects are actually merely ordinary wear and tear. The wife seems to be driving this, so maybe the important factor is that the driveway is just not so apple pie pretty as it was the day they moved in.
Too bad the shopping music in background. These guys are wealthy. I'm sure they spend more money on her face then most of us earn in a year and yet they want a free driveway. Greed
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
The ambient music during a small claims is creepy af
The judge was great. Patient, thoughtful and understanding.
So really, whether the warranty is binding on the new owners is more complicated than first glance. The standard seems to be whether or not the manufacturer was able to disclaim warranty to downstream buyers. In this case, the defendant was able to prove that new owners had seen the warranty disclaimer, and as such judge Brown ruled correctly. Funny enough though, the most important legal issue here, applicability of warranty disclaimers, received the least amount of time being argued. The plaintiffs tried at the end to say they hadn't agreed to it, but the defendant showed they had seen it. Buyer beware what documents you accept in purchase agreements.
The real legal issue: is the warranty and the disclaimer transferable to new owners? If these new owners had not ever seen that warranty before, nor had the opportunity to negotiate the warranty, I think they'd have a valid claim the warranty shouldn't apply to them (which is what they were trying to get at saying they hadn't signed it). However, the defendant nailed them in the purchase agreement where that document was included and thus they had accepted it. I guess the lesson here is, when you buy a house, be careful what documents you accept. If the plaintiffs could have said they'd never seen that warranty before, I think they'd have had a case to have it tossed, in which case the common law of warranty of fitness for a particular use would apply.
Unfortunately, when you buy something as complex as a house, you have to watch every detail by yourself, or get an iron-clad warranty or satisfaction clause to take care of any problems found after title passes. Or take the lean with the fat.
In this case, there is also the problem that the extent of the defect was not clearly established. If the whole driveway was disappearing into a cloud of dust, the developer/builder would surely have been found liable, if only under a theory of equitable warranty; when you sell a paved driveway, you will be held liable if it turns out effectively not to be a paved driveway but instead an inchoate mass of dust and stone. In this case, we can't exclude the assessment that what are being presented as defects are actually merely ordinary wear and tear. The wife seems to be driving this, so maybe the important factor is that the driveway is just not so apple pie pretty as it was the day they moved in.
That background music is so distracting.
this doesn’t seem like a small claims hearing.
All this talk and not one photo?
Too bad the shopping music in background.
These guys are wealthy. I'm sure they spend more money on her face then most of us earn in a year and yet they want a free driveway. Greed
Michael Hoyt is the sh!t. Tell ya what, I'd have them do all my driveways if I could afford it.