caveat emptor doctrine in Kentucky

2006In such cases the law applies to the contract or lease the doctrine of caveat emptor.” Home Realty Co. v. Carius, 189 Ky. 228 , 224 S.W. 751 (1920).

2006In such cases the law applies to the contract or lease the doctrine of caveat emptor.” Home Realty Co. v. Carius, 189 Ky. 228 , 224 S.W. 751 (1920).

2000Vanada’s Heirs v. Hopkins’ Adm’r., 24 Ky. 285 , 1 J.J.

2000Vanada's Heirs v. Hopkins' Adm'r., 24 Ky. 285 , 1 J.J.

1977In Fannon v. Carden, Ky., 240 S.W.2d 101 (1951), the court states at page 103 that: As a general rule where no direct representation is made by the vendor concerning definite facts and the purchaser has sufficient opportunity to observe the condition of the premises, the maxim of caveat emptor is applicable .

1969List v. Fashion Park, 340 F.2d 457 , 22 A.L.R.3d 782 .

1969List v. Fashion Park, 340 F.2d 457 , 22 A.L.R.3d 782 .

1952The tendency of modern decisions is to restrict, rather than to enlarge, the doctrine of caveat emptor.” See also Annis v. Ferguson, 84 S.W. 553 , 27 Ky.Law Rep. 56; McGuffin v. Smith, 215 Ky. 606 , 286 S.W. 884 ; Cowles’ Ex’r v. Johnson, 297 Ky. 454 , 179 S.W.2d 674, 675 , wherein we said “This doctrine does not bar the right to rely on false representations as to factual matters made by one disposing of property.” The court properly submitted the question to the jury.

1952The tendency of modern decisions is to restrict, rather than to enlarge, the doctrine of caveat emptor.” See also Annis v. Ferguson, 84 S.W. 553 , 27 Ky.Law Rep. 56; McGuffin v. Smith, 215 Ky. 606 , 286 S.W. 884 ; Cowles’ Ex’r v. Johnson, 297 Ky. 454 , 179 S.W.2d 674, 675 , wherein we said “This doctrine does not bar the right to rely on false representations as to factual matters made by one disposing of property.” The court properly submitted the question to the jury.

1952The tendency of modern decisions is to restrict, rather than to enlarge, the doctrine of caveat emptor.” See also Annis v. Ferguson, 84 S.W. 553 , 27 Ky.Law Rep. 56; McGuffin v. Smith, 215 Ky. 606 , 286 S.W. 884 ; Cowles’ Ex’r v. Johnson, 297 Ky. 454 , 179 S.W.2d 674, 675 , wherein we said “This doctrine does not bar the right to rely on false representations as to factual matters made by one disposing of property.” The court properly submitted the question to the jury.

1952The tendency of modern decisions is to restrict, rather than to enlarge, the doctrine of caveat emptor.” See also Annis v. Ferguson, 84 S.W. 553 , 27 Ky.Law Rep. 56; McGuffin v. Smith, 215 Ky. 606 , 286 S.W. 884 ; Cowles’ Ex’r v. Johnson, 297 Ky. 454 , 179 S.W.2d 674, 675 , wherein we said “This doctrine does not bar the right to rely on false representations as to factual matters made by one disposing of property.” The court properly submitted the question to the jury.

1940In fact, such sales derive their sanctity from their supposed fairness and regularity; and it is just as important and obligatory upon the chancellor to afford relief against fraud or mistake committed in them, when wrong and injury has been done, as it is in case of private sales. ’ ’ In accord therewith see the case of Trigg v. Jones’ Adm’r, 102 Ky. 44 , 42 S. W. 848 , 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1009 .

1940In fact, such sales derive their sanctity from their supposed fairness and regularity; and it is just as important and obligatory upon the chancellor to afford relief against fraud or mistake committed in them, when wrong and injury has been done, as it is in case of private sales. ’ ’ In accord therewith see the case of Trigg v. Jones’ Adm’r, 102 Ky. 44 , 42 S. W. 848 , 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1009 .

1934“In Kentucky Union Company v. Commonwealth, 128 Ky. 610 , 108 S. W. 931 , 110 S. W. 398 , 33 Ky. Law Rep. 9 , 49, 587, one of the very first cases which arose under the Forfeiture Act, this court said: ‘The doctrine of caveat emptor applies in this, as in other proceedings.

1934“In Kentucky Union Company v. Commonwealth, 128 Ky. 610 , 108 S. W. 931 , 110 S. W. 398 , 33 Ky. Law Rep. 9 , 49, 587, one of the very first cases which arose under the Forfeiture Act, this court said: ‘The doctrine of caveat emptor applies in this, as in other proceedings.

1934And the purchaser, and not the occupant, as argued by counsel for appellant, would be required to show in actions to recover under his purchase, that the land claimed by him was not of the excluded class.’ “The opinion in the Kentucky Union Case was followed and approved in Davidson v. Lewis, Judge, 159 Ky. 798 , 169 S. W. 538 , and after quoting the language above set out made this further remark respecting a purchaser under the Forfeiture Act: ‘If he (the purchaser at the sale) attempts to dispossess any of them (the occupants), as he may do, in an action brought directly against them for th

1934And the purchaser, and not the occupant, as argued by counsel for appellant, would be required to show in actions to recover under his purchase, that the land claimed by him was not of the excluded class.’ “The opinion in the Kentucky Union Case was followed and approved in Davidson v. Lewis, Judge, 159 Ky. 798 , 169 S. W. 538 , and after quoting the language above set out made this further remark respecting a purchaser under the Forfeiture Act: ‘If he (the purchaser at the sale) attempts to dispossess any of them (the occupants), as he may do, in an action brought directly against them for th

1927Eq. 588, 120 A. 797 , the rule is stated: “In buying without covenants of title the doctrine of caveat emptor must apply, and neither failure of nor defects in title, in the absence of fraud, affords ground for relief.” The purchaser must protect himself by such covenants as he deems necessary.

1920Franklin v. Tracy, 117 Ky. 267 , 77 S. W. 1113 , 63 L.

1920Franklin v. Tracy, 117 Ky. 267 , 77 S. W. 1113 , 63 L.

1915Ency. of Law, 1236; Englehardt v. Clanton, 83 Ala., 336 ; Williston’s Law of Sales, Section 239; Young v. Plattner Co. (Colo.), 91 Pacific, 1109 .