405 A.2d 54 (Conn. 1978)
- The court held that liability for innocent misrepresentation was entirely appropriate.
- Although the builder-vendor had built no houses other than the one for the purchaser, that information was not disclosed to the purchaser until the sale had been concluded.
- The court found that the builder-vendor's statement that there was nothing wrong with the house could reasonably have been heard by the purchaser as an assertion that the builder-vendor had sufficient factual information to justify his general opinion about the quality of the house.
- The court recognized the extension of warranty liability for innocent misrepresentation to a builder-vendor who sold a new home to a purchaser.
- Further, the court found that the general rule for measurement of damages upon breach of warranty was to award the prevailing party such compensation that placed him in the same position he could have enjoyed had the property been as warranted.
- The court found that to the extent that reliance expenses were probative of losses incurred because of breach, they must be expenses demonstrably incident to breach.
- The court found that the trial court's award of damages was in error.
The judgment was set aside and the case was remanded.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.