Caveat Emptor

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID:	44
Page Categories:	[Legal Principles]
Citation:	Caveat Emptor, CLNP 44, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/08/24

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co., 1995 CanLII 146 (SCC)

11 However, Huband J.A. resolved the problem by deciding that the result in this case would be the same under either the Anns or the Murphy approach. First, Huband J.A., at p. 90, found that the concept of caveat emptor negated any relationship of proximity as defined under the first stage of Lord Wilberforce's two-stage Anns approach:

The maxim, caveat emptor, operates as between purchaser and vendor. But the very existence of the principle instructs the potential purchaser to rely upon his own investigations, inspections and inquiries, and not to rely upon the fact that the vendor had retained Smith Carter Partners as architects, Bird as general contractor, and that Kornovski & Keller was one of the subcontractors, and since they are reputable firms, the integrity of the building can be safely assumed. The concept of "buyer beware" tells the potential purchaser that if it seeks greater protection than its own investigations, inspections and inquiries provide, it should seek appropriate warranties from the vendor or, if that cannot be bargained, to seek out an insurer to cover anticipated future risks.

Second, Huband J.A., at p. 86, found that the House of Lords in D & F Estates had set forth sufficiently compelling policy concerns to justify precluding recovery under the second branch of the Anns test:

The great debate as to whether the Anns case was correctly decided and should be followed, or whether the reasoning in Murphy should be preferred will rage on. But in certain cases, I do not think that the difference in approach will yield a difference in result. In the D & F Estates case, the House of Lords did in fact consider whether there were factors which should negative, reduce or limit the scope of a duty of care owed by a building contractor to the subsequent lessee of the building, or a limitation on the damages to which a breach of that duty may give rise. The court found that considerations did exist which should limit the remedy. Lord Bridge observed that with respect to defective chattels, economic loss is recoverable in contract by a buyer or hirer of the chattel entitled to the benefit of a relevant warranty of quality, but economic loss is "not recoverable in tort by a remote buyer or hirer of the chattel". Lord Bridge concluded that the same law should apply in the field of real property and this need for consistency should indeed limit the breadth of a remedy for a breach of a duty of care.

Outaouais Synergest Inc. v. Lang Michener LLP, 2013 ONCA 526 (CanLII)

[68] As the trial judge concluded, the agreement of purchase and sale between the Keenans and Outaouais is an agreement to which the doctrine of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) applies. While that doctrine is popularly reduced to the term caveat emptor, it is helpful to recognize for our purposes that the more complete description is "caveat emptor, qui ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit", which translates as "let the purchaser, who ought not to be ignorant of the amount and nature of the interest, exercise proper caution" (emphasis added). See Professor John D. McCamus, "Caveat Emptor: The Position at Common Law", in Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures 2002: Real Property Law: Conquering the Complexities (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2003), at p. 97.

...

[77] This court and the Manitoba Court of Appeal have both confirmed that silence and half-truths can amount to fraudulent misrepresentation and that, where a vendor, who has no duty to speak, decides to break that silence, the doctrine of caveat emptor falls away as a defence mechanism and the vendor must speak truthfully and completely about the matters raised: see Krawchuk v. Scherbak (2011), 106 O.R. (3d) 598, [2011] O.J. No. 2064, 2011 ONCA 352, at para. 77, citing Kaufmann v. Gibson, [2007] O.J. No. 2711, 59 R.P.R. (4th) 293 (S.C.J.); Alevizos v. Nirula, [2003] M.J. No. 433, 2003 MBCA 148, 180 Man. R. (2d) 186, at paras. 18-25. These cases involved situations where vendors completed voluntary vendor disclosure statements in residential real estate transactions.

Tobey v. Loranger, 2020 ONSC 4669 (CanLII)

[24] The trial judge does not specifically address the issue of caveat emptor in his Reasons. It is not clear to what extent this issue was raised at trial. In any event I have concluded that the maxim of caveat emptor would not have provided a viable defence to the plaintiff’s claim. In the Supreme Court of Canada decision Fraser-Reid v. Droumtsekas, 1979 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 720, Justice Dickson notes that,

Although the common law doctrine of caveat emptor has long since ceased to play any significant part in the sale of goods, it has lost little of its pristine force in the sale of land.

[25] The reason why the rule of caveat emptor rarely raises a defence in the sale of goods is because of the implied conditions which are usually associated with the sale of goods. As noted by Don J. Manderscheid, Q.C. in his article Caveat Emptor and the Sale of Land: The Erosion of a Doctrine, 2001 Can LII Docs 142,

Unlike the sale of goods, in the ordinary course of the buying and selling of land, without an express warranty or contractual provision in the sale agreement, the law will not imply a warranty as to the merchantability of the land for purposes of habitation.

[26] In any event, the doctrine of caveat emptor will not be invoked in the presence of a contractual condition. See for example Matz v. Copley, 2010 ONSC 5565; affirmed by the Court of Appeal at 2011 ONCA 485. As previously noted, the trial judge found a breach of the purchase agreement. This is reflected in his comments that Dan’s Auto Sales had agreed to sell a truck that was “certified” and which turned out to be unroadworthy. He correctly concluded that this was not the plaintiff’s problem, “its Dan’s Auto Sales’ problem”.

Ashrafi v. Carraro, 2019 ONSC 6326 (CanLII)

The Doctrine of Caveat Emptor

65 Before proceeding, I pause to briefly address the doctrine of caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware").

66 The appellants submit that circumventing the parties' intentions as expressed by the entire agreement clause in the APS erodes the doctrine of caveat emptor. I disagree with the premise of this submission. Having concluded that the entire agreement clause in this case operates retrospectively, not prospectively, it cannot be said that the respondents' claim for negligent misrepresentation has the effect of circumventing the parties' intentions or the entire agreement clause.

67 At para. 38 of its reasons, the Divisional Court quoted from Killeen J.'s decision in Kaufmann, at para. 119, for the proposition that, "once a vendor "breaks his silence" by signing the SPIS, the doctrine of caveat emptor falls away as a defence mechanism and the vendor must speak truthfully and completely about the matters raised in the unambiguous questions at issue". Although the SPIS at issue in Kaufmann was expressly incorporated into the agreement of purchase and sale, I agree with the thrust of Killeen J.'s remarks. So long as a purchaser's action is not precluded by the agreement of purchase and sale, the vendor cannot hide behind the doctrine of caveat emptor if he or she breaks the silence by signing a SPIS.

Gladu v Robineau, 2017 ONSC 37 (CanLII)

[268] A vendor is not obligated to disclose all known facts affecting the use or value of the property, which may be material to a purchaser’s judgment. A purchaser must form his or her own judgment: caveat emptor.

[269] The doctrine of caveat emptor will not be displaced by silence about defects, unless the silence relates to some material fact, which there is a duty on the silent party to disclose to the other. Put another way, mere silence, without more, on the part of a vendor regarding a defect subsequently discovered by a purchaser, will not normally found a cause of action for misrepresentation or for fraud: see Alevizos v. Nirula, 2003 MBCA 148 (CanLII), 180 Man. R. (2d) 186, at para. 19.