Two persons J and L hired a contractor to build a house. After the construction was completed, it was found that the roof was 7ft higher than the limit. The officer directed to remove the exceeding height. The board granted the variance as the hardship was created due to the fault of the contractor. Neighbors appealed to the court stating that the hardship was self-created. The court passed the decision in favor of the neighbors. To find: The judgement of the court.

Question

Sam and Eleanor Gaito purchased a home from Howard Frank Auman, Jr., in the spring of 2011. Auman had completed the construction of the house in November 2006. In the interim, three different parties had lived in the house for brief periods, but Auman had retained ownership. The last tenants, the Ashleys, experienced difficulties with the home’s air conditioning system. Repairs were attempted, but no effort was made to change the capacity of the air conditioning unit. When the Gaitos moved into the house in June 2011, they too had problems with the air conditioning. The system created only a ten-degree difference between the outside and inside temperatures. The Gaitos complained to Auman on a number of occasions, but extensive repairs failed to correct the cooling problem. In May 2014, the Gaitos brought an action against Auman, alleging that the purchase price of the home included central air conditioning and that Auman had breached the implied warranty of habitability. At trial, an…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 26, Problem 4BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Two persons J and L hired a contractor to build a house. After the construction was completed, it was found that the roof was 7ft higher than the limit. The officer directed to remove the exceeding height. The board granted the variance as the hardship was created due to the fault of the contractor. Neighbors appealed to the court stating that the hardship was self-created. The court passed the decision in favor of the neighbors.

To find: The judgement of the court.

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Two persons J and L hired a contractor to build a home. After the construction was completed, it was found that the roof was 7ft higher than the limit. The officer directed to remove the exceeding height. The board granted the variance as the hardship was created due to the fault of the contractor. Neighbors appealed to the court stating that the hardship was self-created. The court passed the decision in favor of the neighbors.

To find: Legitimate grounds for granting a variance.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Sam and Eleanor Gaito purchased a home from Howard Frank Auman, Jr., in the spring of 2011. Auman had completed the construction of the house in November 2006. In the interim, three different parties had lived in the house for brief periods, but Auman had retained ownership. The last tenants, the Ashleys, experienced difficulties with the home’s air conditioning system. Repairs were attempted, but no effort was made to change the capacity of the air conditioning unit. When the Gaitos moved into the house in June 2011, they too had problems with the air conditioning. The system created only a ten-degree difference between the outside and inside temperatures. The Gaitos complained to Auman on a number of occasions, but extensive repairs failed to correct the cooling problem. In May 2014, the Gaitos brought an action against Auman, alleging that the purchase price of the home included central air conditioning and that Auman had breached the implied warranty of habitability. At trial, an…

Atlantic Cement operated a large cement plant. Neighboring landowners sued for damages and an injunction, claiming that their properties were injured by the dirt, smoke, and vibrations coming from the plant. The lower court found that the plant constituted a nuisance and granted temporary damages but refused to grant an injunction because the benefits of operating the plant outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs’ properties. The landowners appealed. Does the plant constitute a nuisance? Should it be shut down?

Reaction to discussion below: Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. was a tenant in a building where alarm systems were maintained by the ADT company. When the systems were defective and allowed water into the building, it damaged Melodee’s property; Then Melodee decided to sue ADT and their defense was that the service contract limited the liability to 10% of the annual service charge given to the customers. The limitation can be valid since the ADT company did not provide much liability protection. The ADT company can offer another protection plan to Melodee, which would cover her property but at a higher price rate. This case limitation of liability clauses will be enacted since ADT company was not fully liable for Melodee's property, which only would cover the limited 10%. A limitation of liability clauses contract states that one of the parties is not fully liable for damages in case of a breach. The ADT company is at fault for the malfunctions in their systems they should offer a higher…