No topic Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

No topic - Essay Example Thereafter, the local municipal council issued Mrs. Watkin with a notice requiring that the extension be demolished and be replaced to make it comply with the by-laws. Mrs. Watkin filed a case in court for damages and the judge ruled in her favor by declaring that extension was constructed without a building permit, non-compliance with the municipal by-laws and the extension was not in a fit and habitable condition. The plaintiff’s counsel anchored the claim based two cases anchored on the fact that the susceptibility of a building to a local authority requisition constituted a defect in title. (2) The lawsuit for damages was filed in court by Mrs. Watkin as the plaintiff, while the defendant is Mr. Black, and the judge in this case is Judge Henry. (3) The cause of action is not one based on a contract of sale, but on a breach of the duty of care imposed by the common law on a builder in favor of a subsequent owner, to make good title to the estate or property he has contracte d to sell. The issue in this case is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages for the breach of the implied term and duty on the part of the defendant that good title would pass on settlement. (4) The case was decided on the basis of common law rule which puts a vendor under a duty to make good title to the estate or property he has contracted to sell. (5) The relevant question of law refers whether or not there was a defect in the title for failure of Mr. Black to comply with the building permit and non-compliance with municipal laws before constructing the extension. (6) Plaintiff’s counsel quoted Australian cases in order support of his argument and justify the claim of damages. One of the sources of the Court in resolving disputes is by using judicially developed principles laid down in previously decided cases based on the Doctrine of Precedent. (7) The four cases were distinguished namely: Vukelic v Sadil1 and Maxwell v Pinheiro2, by relating the mere d efect in quality, as is usually the position in respect of a town planning restriction as discussed in the case of Dell v. Beasley3 and a building line restriction enunciated in the case of Harris v. Weaver4, where the ownership of the land could be vested in the purchaser although its use was restricted. The case of Moss v PTA Company Ltd5 was also quoted at arriving with a decision where it was ruled that a frontage set-back requirement was held to be a defect in title because the vendor was obliged to dedicate a strip of land in question. According to the ruling, the susceptibility of part of the building to a demolition order was not something known to the plaintiff nor was there anything that required her to make enquiry of the local authority and ascertain the existence of the defect. Thus, there has been a breach of the implied term that good title would pass on settlement. The case of Moss v PTA Company Ltd6 was followed by the court in deciding the case. (8) The ‘rati o decidendi’ of this case laid the legal principle that an owner/builder has a duty of care to a subsequent purchase by making sure that good title will pass on settlement, otherwise, failure to comply with the duty makes the owner/builder liable for negligence. The court held in favor of the plaintiff, Mrs. Watkin by finding that there was a breach of duty on the part of Mr. Black. This cause of action is not one based on a