Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Citation
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Parent Document
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-11-20
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8345080/heath-v-palmer/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
- Heath v. Palmer, 181 Vt. 545 (2006)
Full Text
967 charsII4. Dissatisfied with defendants’ response, plaintiffs filed suit, alleging construction negligence, consumer fraud, and breach of contract and warranty. The parties agreed to submit the matter to a special master, but reserved the right to object to the court’s acceptance of the report. V.R.C.P. 53. Following a hearing, the master submitted a written report to the court, setting forth his findings and conclusions. The master concluded that the warranty was “an effective limitation of liability” precluding plaintiffs from recovering for any defects not reported within one year of the closing or otherwise acknowledged as deficiencies by defendants. As for recoverable damages, the master noted that the only evidence of remedial costs was the engineering report submitted by plaintiffs, and awarded damages for nine separate repair items totaling $4,089.74. The master explained the discrepancy between this figure and that submitted by plaintiffs as follows: