Question description

 

 

1.   After living in his home for three years, Roger Nathaniel sold this home to Marc Copland.  Nathaniel and Copland hired a pest control company to inspect the home.  Prior to the selling of the home, the pest control company reported  that there was evidence of a previously treated infestation of termites but that no evidence of active infestation was found.  The contract specified that the purchaser had inspected the premises and agreed to purchase it “as is.”  A year later, Copland discovered that levels of chlordane were present on the property.  They also discovered that the home had been treated 10 years earlier for termites.  At that time, chlordane was the chemical used to remove termites.  Despite a toxicologist’s report that the level of chlordane did not constitute a health concern, Copland spent $50,000 removing the contaminated soil from his property.  He brought a lawsuit against Nathaniel for the cost of the soil removal and failing to inform him of the previous damage done by termites.  In whose favor do you think the court will decide?  Why?  Fully explain your answer.