回複：你說的有道理.條理分明.可是我有一點有關你的:銷費者購得"有問

First of all, realty and goods are two different things. Realty is governed by common law and the sales of goods is governed by uniform commercial code. You can not really apply UCC rules to real property. The examples in your previous post, such as exchange goods, and others, are belonged to sales of goods and there is an implied merchantability for every good sold. For real property there is no such rule.

Secondly, let's say you go to the small claim court, what do you want to claim? Do you want to claim that the landlord breached the contract? Do you want to claim that the landlord did something wrong? There is really no breach of contract. As I said before, your paying rent and the landlord's maintaining the house are two independent promises and one thing can not rely on the happening of the other. If you do not pay rent, you are in immediate breaching already. What about torts? We know the landlord did not intentionally put the ants in the house so that intentional torts are not applicable. Negligence? Can you find causation? But for the landlord's wrongful conduct the family would not bitten by ants? Ah? Anybody living in california knows no matter what you do ants will come each year. How about suing the terminix company for negligence? Should it be vicariously liable? Ask youself these questions you will know that these claims are groundless. Beseides, there is really no proof that the landlord did anything wrong. Yes, they claimed the pine tree was the problem. Who said so? Is it based on what terminix said? Besides, even though you can get the case pass the judge and go to the jury, the landlord can raise a defense that the family should take better care of themselves. Did they do anything, such as buying ant killers? If not, in some states the plaintiff will be barred from recovery if there is a contributory negligence. California is comparative negligence state, great than 51%. If your own fault is greater than 51% then you still get nothing.

I'm glad you raised the emotional distress questions. If you go to the store to buy a roasted chicken and got sick from eating it, unless you can prove that the store did it gross negligently, you can not sue emotional distress, not even NIED. Ordinary negligence is not suffice.

One thing I learnt is that for lawyers, you have to detach your emotions from the case. If you are so attached, you will be hurt eventually. If you don't beleive me, then rent the movie and take a look.

所有跟帖： 

• good saying! I think you convinced me! Good job! thanks! :) -east666- ♀ (0 bytes) () 12/03/2005 postreply 19:22:53