An Analysis of the Woolcock Street Investments Case Assignment

An Analysis of the Woolcock Street Investments Case - Assignment ExampleThis effect began in 1987 when the Eagle steer Nominees, Inc., designated as trustees for the BSL Growth Trust Comp any(prenominal), engaged a club doing engineering sound to design foundations for a warehouse and offices in Townsville. When the builds construction had been finished, the trustee Eagle Star then decided to sell the property to the plaintiff. In the contract of sale, there was no warranty indicating that the building had no defects. Likewise, the buyer did not conduct any building inspection, survey before purchase, or any sort of appraisal to determine whether or not the building had been constructed in an optimal manner. Also, there was no assignment in contract by the vendor of the rights to proceed against others in case of defects.Just more(prenominal) than a year after the property had been turned over, the defects become apparent. The building had unmistakable structural trauma and th is was because of how the foundations were arranged, as well as the material below the foundations. The buyer filed a case against the engineering company and its employee, stating that the company owed a duty of reasonable care in designing the foundations of the building and ensuring the safety of the premises. In response, the company said that they owed no such duty of care to the buyer and that they were not at fault, because they in fact had asked the trustee to allow them to do soil tests, however they were told that such soil tests were not infallible and to simply use structural footing sizes. A lawsuit for change was then filed, and the main perplexity that the courts were tasked to respond to was Whether or not a attendant buyer of commercial property had the right to fulfill the builder for design malfunctions? The court ruled against the buyer and ruled that the duty of care owed to a subsequent or remote purchaser by the engineer that built the foundation of the b uilding in movement does not hold when the defective building is used for commercial purposes. This means that there is no case that can be filed against the engineer by the subsequent buyer because the building was not used as a dwelling, but rather as a commercial establishment. Previous Jurisprudence It is difficult to lambast about Woolcock without talking about the progenitor case, Bryan v. Maloney. (1995) 182 CLR 609, 61617, 623 (Mason CJ, Deane and GaudronJJ) (Bryan). In that case, the plaintiff was able to successfully claim damages against the builder, despite the fact that she was a subsequent buyer of a residential property and the sale was reason seven years after the property had been built. The plaintiff had inspected the house many times before buying it, with no observations made that there were any defects. However, after six months, it was discovered that there were cracks on the groin and this was because the builder had constructed footings that were inadequat e to withstand the changes in the