Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)

Citation: Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)
Parent Document: Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2011-02-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489923/treetop-at-stratton-condo-assn-... ↗

Full Text

1,266 chars

The Association responds by arguing that the Vermont Supreme Court has never
expressly limited implied warranty claims against professionals by requiring contractual privity,
or otherwise, despite being given the opportunity to hold so in Investment Properties, Inc. v.
Lyttle, 169 Vt. 487 (1999). Plaintiff, instead, cites to other jurisdictions that have considered and
rejected lack of privity as a defense in breach of implied warranty actions bought by purchasers
against contractors, architects, or engineers. See Beachwalk Villas Condo. Ass’n. Inc., v. Martin,
406 S.E.2d 372 (S.C. 1991). Plaintiff notes that these cases emphasize that the providers of
construction services should have or did foresee that their services would be relied upon by home
purchasers. Plaintiff insists that Defendants also knew or should have known that they were
providing services ultimately utilized in the construction of a residential development. Again,
noting Vermont’s strong public policy of protecting home purchasers from the schemes of
unscrupulous providers, and the Supreme Court’s election to defer ruling on the issue in
Investment Properties, Plaintiff urges the Court to deny Defendants’ request for judgment as a
matter of law on the claim of implied warranty.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text