Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 02:54

From: Michael Furmston

Subject: Duty to Warn

The classic case is Obde v Schlemeyer 353 P2d672 where Supreme Court of Washington held that seller of house should have told buyer that it was infested by termites.

Beale, Bishop and Furmston 532.

Michael Furmston

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:18:53 +1000
From: Neil Foster
Subject: Re: ODG: Duty to Warn

Dear Jason and others

In Australia the decision in Alec Finlayson Pty Ltd v Armidale City Council (1994) Aust Torts Rep *81-282 held that a local Council was liable (for the economic loss caused by the land's dropping in value) for approving a residential subdivision of land when it ought to have known that the land was contaminated by chemicals and unsuitable for residential development. Of course that is not your example but one would have thought that the case for a vendor to have an implied duty to disclose known dangerous defects in a property was stronger. In relation to landlords the High Court in Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56 held that a landlord who rents out premises has a duty of care to people who will be using the premises. That duty will at least extend to inspecting the premises for obvious dangers before they are let out, and adequately responding to any dangers to which his or her attention is drawn. Again, not your question but similar.

Still, surprisingly hard (I have found) to think of cases matching your precise question. But I will say yes, it seems an obvious duty that should either be implied into the contract or else exist in tort under general foreseeability principles.

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