![]() In a civil action brought by a plaintiff homeowner against a construction company and its president (defendants), alleging violations of G. Ī breach of contract claim brought by a plaintiff homeowner against a construction company (defendant), seeking damages arising out of the construction of a home, was not barred by an express merger provision contained in the purchase and sale agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff, where the merger provision, read in context, applied only to claims of defects in title and not in construction. 260, § 2A, where the record showed unequivocally that the plaintiff failed to commence the action until well more than three years after he was on notice of the alleged misrepresentations. c.260, § 2B, which requires commencement of such a claim within six years from the time the construction was substantially completed further, the plaintiff's misrepresentation claim was barred by the general three-year statute of limitations for commencement of tort actions contained in G. Consumer Protection Act, Unfair act or practice.Ī negligence claim brought by a plaintiff homeowner against a construction company and its president, seeking damages arising out of the construction of a home in the 1970s, was barred by the statute of repose contained in Sale, Purchase and sale agreement, Deed, Merger. Negligence, Building contractor, Statute of repose. Present: RAPOZA, C.J., MCHUGH, & GRAHAM, JJ. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |