Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text

1,071 chars
Whether the defects were inherently unknowable or not, we conclude that on the record of undisputed facts, the Albrechts cannot meet their burden of demonstrating that “in the exercise of reasonable diligence, they should not have known” of them. Friedman v. Jablonski, supra. It was not reasonable as a matter of law for the Albrechts neither to inspect16 nor to use the fireplaces when they knew the express warranty on the fireplaces and chimneys, which they had negotiated, lasted only one year. This conclusion is also implicit in the judge’s conclusion that the defects were not “inherently unknowable” in the circumstances of this case. The statutes of limitations were therefore *716not tolled and the Albrechts’ claims for fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of G. L. c. 93A were filed after the applicable statutes of limitations had expired. For the same reason, the three-year statute of limitations provided in G. L. c. 260, § 2B, expired on the claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability announced in today’s decision.