Albrecht v. Clifford, 436 Mass. 706 (2002)

Citation: Albrecht v. Clifford, 436 Mass. 706 (2002)
Parent Document: Albrecht v. Clifford, 436 Mass. 706 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2002-05-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6578496/albrecht-v-clifford/ ↗

Full Text

1,375 chars

Whether the Albrechts can adequately demonstrate that the defects were “latent” is more questionable. Latent defects are conditions that are hidden or concealed, and are not discoverable by reasonable and customary observation or inspection. Black’s Law Dictionary 429, 887 (7th ed. 1999). The defects in this case, however, were in some measure readily observable. In concluding that the fireplaces and chimneys were defective, the Albrechts’ expert did not have to dismantle them or any other part of the residence. He merely made observations and measurements of the materials and components (e.g., hearths, fireplace boxes, dampers, flues, smoke chambers) that were readily accessible.14 Admittedly, some of the observations (e.g., smoke chambers, flues, and chimney interiors) were more difficult than others (hearths, fireplace boxes, and dampers), and were made with the assistance of video equipment. Whether the discovery and correction of the obvious defects would have led to the discovery of those which were more difficult to observe is a close question on summary judgment, but is one that we need not resolve. We conclude, as the motion judge did, that even assuming a cause of action for the violation of an implied warranty, the Albrechts were barred from pursuing this claim because of their failure to raise it within the three-year statute of limitations.

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text