Douglas v. Visser
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtAppelwick, J.
¶1 When prospective homebuyers discover evidence of a defect, the buyers must beware. They are on notice of the defect and have a duty to make further inquiries. Prior to listing a house for sale, the Vissers made superficial repairs that concealed significant rot damage and made no disclosure of the defect to the buyers. During a prepurchase inspection, the Douglases discovered areas of rot but nevertheless purchased the house without making further inquiries about the rot. The trial court did not find that further inquiry would have been fruitless. The Douglases cannot now obtain relief by…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- INDOOR BILLBOARD WASHINGTON, INC. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
- Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
- Alejandre v. BullWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
- Boeing Co. v. RooneyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Alexander v. SanfordCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Drown v. BooneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Jonathan Deegan v. Windermere Real Estate/center Isle, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2017
- Top Line Builders, Inc. v. BovenkampCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Betty Frye And Todd Duty, Apps. v. Jdh Investment Group Llc, Res.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2020
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.