Hardy

Hardy v. Carmichael

Good Law
1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 1900·207 Cal. App. 2d 218·24 Cal. Rptr. 475
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 1962Civ. 25985California3,998 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wood, J.

Plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Hardy purchased a dwelling house from defendants Mr. and Mrs. Carmichael for $13,125. The purchase agreement was evidenced by a “ deposit receipt” and by escrow instructions. A provision in the re eeipt was: “Seller to furnish Termite clearance showing property free & clear of all visible evidence of fungi, Termites & Dry rot.” A provision in the instructions was: “Current termite, fungus and dry-rot inspection report of accessible areas to be furnished by seller in escrow. Cost of work to clear visible existing infection, if any, to be paid from seller’s funds.” Defendant McKeever made the termite inspection and report. This is an action against the sellers and the inspector for damages allegedly resulting from misrepresentations concerning the termite, fungus, and dry-rot condition of the house. In a nonjury trial judgment was for plaintiffs for $9,154.51. Defendants appeal from the judgment and from the order denying their motions for a new trial.

Appellants Carmichael contend that the court erred (1) in rulings as to admissibility of evidence, and (2) in determining the amount of damages, if any damages should have been allowed.

Appellant McKeever…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.