discussing this duty in a breach of contract case
How later courts described this case
- discussing this duty in a breach of contract case
- “It is true that a non-breaching party must mitigate damages.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RATLIFF, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
Insofar as the majority opinion fails to bar the Sheridans from recovery based upon the release provision of the purchase agreement, I must dissent.
The language of the provision is unambiguous and releases Callander from all liability arising out of defects in the premises. At the time the purchase agreement was entered into no public policy prevented the parties in the present case from agreeing to release Callander from liability arising out of even latent defects. See Lechner v. Reutepohler (1989), Ind.App., 545 N.E.2d 1144, 1148 (an identical release provision held to be unambiguous and to bar the homeowners’ recovery against the builder-vendor for defects in the foundation of the home.)