stating that “purchasers of oceanfront building lots should be expected in some measure to inquire about the land’s susceptibility to erosion”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “purchasers of oceanfront building lots should be expected in some measure to inquire about the land’s susceptibility to erosion”
- where the defendants were “charged with active participation on their own account[s], not merely in their capacities as corporate officers,” in the tortious conduct alleged by the plaintiffs, the trial court erred in sustaining the defendants’ demurrers
- erosion of oceanfront property does not breach implied warranty of habitability as defect not product of builder's work on the land
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LINDE, J.,
concurring.
As I understand it, this case does not involve the issue of an implied warranty of fitness for use in the builder’s sale or long-term lease of a building when the building itself proves unfit by virtue of a defect in the site on which it is built. Such a case would lie somewhere between Yepsen v. Burgess, 269 Or 635 , 525 P2d 1019 (1974), and Cook v. Salishan Properties, 279 Or 333 , 569 P2d 1033 (1977). Its decision can be reserved until the issue is squarely presented.
On that understanding, I concur in the present decision.
Lent, J., joins in this opinion.