CONSTRUCTION LAW.
The Developer sold the land committing a breach of contract and negligence by failing to maintain to adequately plaster certain areas on the flats and/or maintain an acceptable standard and/or reasonable care and skill when constructing the block of flats resulting to damage to the plaintiffs’ apartments.
Based on the facts of the case the plaintiffs can sue under contract law, negligence and nuisance.
CONTRACT LAW
The plaintiffs can sue under the contract of sale of the land by the developers. This begs the question of whether under the contract the developers are liable for the construction of the flats after the flats have been checked and purchased by the plaintiffs.
The next question is whether the developers are liable under the contract for the damage caused by failing to construct not just the damaged flat but also failing to construct adequately the block of flats in general.
The plaintiffs the and the developing company relationship is governed by the contract of sale. If the damage caused to the plaintiffs flats is not governed by a certain clause in the contract then it could be argued that it was an implied term of the contract that the building’s state will not cause damage or affect negatively the state of the plaintiff’s flat. without the implied term there will be no business efficacy and the sale of the flat would be considered a bad deal.
NEGLIGENCE.
It could be argued that if no written or express term is to be found in the contract of sale of the flat itself, that the developer has a duty of care towards the flat’s purchaser not to cause the flat ( his property) damage through the negligent construction of the building. The duty of care arising out of their close contractual relationship. In that case if the contract can’t cover the breach possibly an action through negligence may do so.
NUISANCE.
It may be also possible for the plaintiffs to sue under nuisance provided that facts of the case amount to nuisance. That is if the developer’s who is in fact still the legal proprietor or the tenants of the flats and adjoining flats can be held liable for the nuisance caused to the plaintiffs flat.
JOINDER OF PARTIES.
DIFFERENT PLAINTIFFS SAME DEFENDANT.
Except from the developer in his capacity as a contracting party and selling party and also as a selling party and an owner of the adjoining flats, the tenant of the adjoining flats may be held liable for the nuisance caused and he may be joined to the same cause of action since the damaged caused comes out of the same series of transaction, being the damage caused to their flats through the failure to maintain or the negligent construction of the flats concerned. Secondly they involve a common question of law or fact, namely whether the damage to the plaintiffs flats is caused through brerach of contract, negligence or nuisance. The facts of the involve the same series of transactions, namely the contracts of sale, the construction of the block of flats and the nuisance caused from the adjoining flats. Also since the damage is caused to both parties jointly they the two owners as far the action for negligence or nuisance goes may sell sue jointly on the writ.
SAME SERIES OF TRANSACTION SAME QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT.
We have two plaintiffs, two different contracts but same series of transactions since they both bought the house from the same developers, the damage is caused to them jointly by the same alleged negligence and same breaches by the developers and therefore the facts to be tried are whether the flats sold or the block of flats was constructed negligently or through nuisance since the nuisance is allegedly caused through the same series of transaction the sale of the flats inside the very block of flats.
DIFFERENT PLAINTIFFS AND DIFFERENT DEFENDANTS.
Moreover another defendant may be added to the pleading since it is alleged that the damaged caused may be partly or alternatively caused through his nuisance. The nuisance in the current case be caused jointly by the two defendants. In any case, we are talking about the same nuisance ( the tort is the same).
TRESPASS MAY BE ALSO AN OPTION.
