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

1,788 chars

Nonetheless, the Court is not convinced, and concludes that Vermont law requires privity
in order to sustain a cause of action for breach of an implied warranty. While the Investment
Properties Court ultimately declined to address whether a common law implied warranty should
be enforced where privity was absent, the Court did note that the trial court had properly rejected
an implied warranty claim based on Bolkum v. Staab, a case which held that implied warranties
arise from the business of selling rather than the business of manufacturing. 169 Vt. at 495,
citing Bolkum v. Staab, 133 Vt. 467, 470 (1975). Indeed, as Defendants have noted in their
memoranda, in the limited number of cases addressing this issue, Vermont courts have generally
rejected the contention that warranties can be implied in the absence of a contract between the
parties. See Mainline Tractor & Equip. Co., Inc., v. Nutrite Corp., 937 F.Supp. 1096 (D. Vt.
1996) (lack of privity barred recovery in products liability case under implied warranty theories);
Kinney v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 134 Vt. 571 (1976) (express warranty claim not
controlling on statute of limitations issue in products liability case because lack of privity barred
warranty claim); Mount Snow v. Grand Summit Resort Props., Inc., No.564-12-03 Wmcv (Vt.
Super. Ct. Oct. 24, 2007) (Howard, J.) at 10 (underlying policies of the limitation on duty
reflected in the economic loss rule would be undermined and effectively nullified if Court were
to allow an action based on implied warranties despite the lack of a contractual right or duty).
See also Davencourt, 221 P.3d.at 252 (Utah joining the “overwhelming majority of states” in
requiring there be privity of contract in order to bring a claim for breach of implied warranty).

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text