Man buys house near the San Francisco airport for $1.475 million and apparently claims he was unaware of the airport jet noise that is the basis of his lawsuit. How does that happen? Oakland Tribune: “Stanley Hilton, 60, of Hillsborough, said in unique court papers that his wife of 13 years divorced him and took their young triplets with her last year because of ’round-the-clock’ jet noise at SFO. He also blamed his recent health and professional woes on the air and noise pollution, which he compared to bombs dropping in a war zone. Hilton last week sued SFO, Hillsborough, the counties of San Mateo and San Francisco, dozens of airlines and jet manufacturers, and the real estate agents and couple that sold him his home on Darrell Road for $1.475 million in April 2003.”
Man Moves Near SFO Airport & Sues over Jet Noise
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
One Comment
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I do not know what the legal precedent is in the USA but I would say Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects. The modern trend in the US, however, is one of the Implied Warranty of Fitness that applies only to the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and the rule of Caveat Emptor applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer).[2] Many other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this.
Caveat emptor
Regards
Will
http://www.gb-legal.com