"The purchase of a home is not an everyday transaction for the average family, and in many instances is the most important transaction of a lifetime. To apply the rule of caveat emptor to an inexperienced buyer, and in favor of a builder who is daily engaged in the business of building and selling houses, is manifestly a denial of justice."
How later courts described this case
- "The purchase of a home is not an everyday transaction for the average family, and in many instances is the most important transaction of a lifetime. To apply the rule of caveat emptor to an inexperienced buyer, and in favor of a builder who is daily engaged in the business of building and selling houses, is manifestly a denial of justice."
- peeling paint on exterior of house
- old irrigation ditch caused water seepage to basement walls washing away support for garage floor
- “Major defects which render the house unfit for habitation, and which are not readily remediable, entitle buyer to rescission and restitution.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPEAR, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion, i. e., that the action should be remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the issues of constructive fraud and/or implied warranty of fitness for habitation. In my opinion, however, these principles are so akin to fraud, the burden of proving such constructive fraud or the breach of such implied warranty should be the same as that required of the plaintiff in an action on express fraud. In other words, the plaintiffs should be required to prove the breach or the elements of constructive fraud by clear and convincing evidence, rather than merely a preponderance of the evidence. See Chester B. Brown Co. v. Goff, 89 Idaho 170 , 403 P. 2d 855 and cases cited therein, p. 175; Nelson v. Hoff, 70 Idaho 354 , 218 P.2d 345 ; Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 .