Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contractstatutesummary judgmentstatute of limitationshabitability

contractdefendantstatutemotionsummary judgmentstatute of limitationshabitability

Related Cases

Albrecht v. Clifford, 436 Mass. 706, 767 N.E.2d 42

Facts

In 1993, Peter L. Albrecht and Margaret Page Albrecht purchased a newly constructed home from builder Alfred G. Clifford. After moving in, they learned of defects in the fireplaces and chimneys, similar to those found in another home built by Clifford. They filed a lawsuit in 1998, claiming breach of contract, implied warranty, fraud, and other violations, after discovering these defects.

In 1993, Peter L. Albrecht and Margaret Page Albrecht bought a newly constructed single-family home with nine fireplaces from Alfred G. Clifford, an architect and general contractor.

Issue

Did the implied warranty of habitability apply to the sale of a newly constructed home, and were the purchasers' claims barred by the statute of limitations?

Rule

The court recognized an implied warranty of habitability for newly constructed homes, which protects purchasers from latent defects. However, claims must be brought within the applicable statute of limitations.

We conclude that there is such a warranty but affirm the entry of summary judgment for the defendant on statute of limitations grounds.

Analysis

The court applied the rule of implied warranty of habitability to the facts, concluding that while such a warranty exists, the Albrechts failed to act within the statute of limitations. They did not inspect or use the fireplaces for over three years, which the court deemed unreasonable, thus barring their claims.

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.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment for the builder, ruling that the Albrechts' claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations.

Judgment affirmed.

Who won?

Builder Alfred G. Clifford prevailed because the court found that the Albrechts' claims were barred by the statute of limitations due to their failure to inspect or use the fireplaces.

The court affirmed the summary judgment for the builder, ruling that the Albrechts' claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sofa Gallery, Inc. v. Stratford Co., 872 F.2d 259

Venable v. Hickerson, Phelps, Kirtley & Associates, Inc., 903 S.W.2d 659, 133 Lab.Cas. P 58,233

Coakley & Williams, Inc. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp., 706 F.2d 456, 36 UCC Rep.Serv. 87

Reger Development, LLC v. National City Bank, 592 F.3d 759

Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. v. Deutsche Solar GmbH, 116 F.Supp.3d 818