Burgess v. Rickard

Burgess v. Rickard

The adjudicator found negligent misrepresentation: the inspector's report falsely stated the sill was satisfactory without qualifying that inspection was limited by conditions; the Claimant reasonably relied on that representation and suffered quantifiable repair costs; the inspector is personally liable because the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 NSSM 15
Parties
Claimant: Brian Charles Burgess; Defendant: Ralph Rickard
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision (reasons for Decision Released February 25, 2008)
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant against Defendant for $6,816.85
Legal Topics
Home Inspection, Limitation of Liability, Piercing Corporate Veil, Damages, Costs and Interest
Source Language
english
Tort Negligent Misrepresentation Professional Negligence Contract Law Corporate Law Real Property Home Inspection Limitation of Liability +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Charles Burgess

Claimant

Ralph Rickard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision (reasons for Decision Released February 25, 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the home inspector negligently failed to detect a rotting sill
  2. 2 Whether the inspector's report amounted to a negligent misrepresentation relied upon by the purchaser
  3. 3 Whether the individual inspector is personally liable despite operating through a corporation

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator found negligent misrepresentation: the inspector's report falsely stated the sill was satisfactory without qualifying that inspection was limited by conditions; the Claimant reasonably relied on that representation and suffered quantifiable repair costs; the inspector is personally liable because the Claimant was not informed he was contracting with a corporation; the limitation clause in the report did not bar liability because it was not brought to the Claimant's attention and was ambiguous as to negligence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant against Defendant for $6,816.85

Orders

  • Damages for repairs and related expenses $5,608.63
  • Prejudgment interest $400.13 at 4% from May 15, 2006 to February 25, 2008