Jury Duty

[Caliga]

It comes down to patent versus latent defect, and whether or not the previous owner knew of the problem.

You'll note from 'PART 5' that the defendant claimed they were aware and fraudulently failed to disclose that fact upon the sale of the property and business.

[Barrister]

It comes down to patent versus latent defect, and whether or not the previous owner knew of the problem.

You'll note from 'PART 5' that the defendant claimed they were aware and fraudulently failed to disclose that fact upon the sale of the property and business.

Which is why I said (contrary to Habs assertion it was open and shut) that is what the case would seem to turn on.

What I do recall from my septic field case is that it turns on experts.  We had a really good expert who was able to state quite convincingly that the field was not designed properly from the get-go.

[sbr]

It comes down to patent versus latent defect, and whether or not the previous owner knew of the problem.

You'll note from 'PART 5' that the defendant claimed they were aware and fraudulently failed to disclose that fact upon the sale of the property and business.

Ah I must have missed that part.  Wasn't there an inspection done on the property before the sale?  I would think the septic system would be high on the list of things a third party inspector would look at.

[Habbaku]

What I do recall from my septic field case is that it turns on experts.

[Caliga]

Oh, also, as I believe this is now a matter of public record:

The case was TUNACAKES PROPERTIES v. SJK PROPERTIES, SK PROPERTIES, and STEVEN E. KILLIAN 

[The Brain]

Oh, also, as I believe this is now a matter of public record:

The case was TUNACAKES PROPERTIES v. SJK PROPERTIES, SK PROPERTIES, and STEVEN E. KILLIAN 

No Bored Of Education? Your case is suck.

[sbr]

TUNACAKES? 

[Caliga]

Ah I must have missed that part.  Wasn't there an inspection done on the property before the sale?  I would think the septic system would be high on the list of things a third party inspector would look at.

The buyer, by law, had to have an environmental inspection done for two reasons, which focused on those two things:

A. inspection of his fuel tanks and dispensing equipment
B. inspection of his food service and sanitation facilities

These items were found to have no deficiencies.

The county inspector who looked after item B. also happens to be responsible for septic inspections, but he didn't do a septic inspection other than a surface examination of the leach field, which appeared normal, because at the time the septic tank, which was first installed in 1979, was totally buried (by Kentucky law they now have to have access risers when newly installed) and neither seller nor buyer wanted to pay for excavation.

Unsurprisingly, his tank now has a riser. 

[Caliga]

TUNACAKES? 

Yep.

One of the jurors asked one of the plaintiffs to explain that (as I mentioned earlier, the judge in the trial actively encouraged juror questions) and he said his nickname was "Tuna"--he was a pretty big guy so I can see it, and as a joke he called his brother-in-law "Cupcake" because he was "kind of a wuss", so they combined the two to come up with "Tunacakes".

[DGuller]

What's the verdict?  The suspense is killing me.

[Caliga]

I'm gonna pollify it and then delay revealing the results until the debate has amused me long enough.  Plus, it will kill you. 

[DGuller]

I'm gonna pollify it and then delay revealing the results until the debate has amused me long enough.  Plus, it will kill you. 

Pfft, you're giving far too much credit to my attention span.  The suspense may kill me, but five minutes later I won't remember anything about it.

[Eddie Teach]

I would think your zombified flesh would serve as a reminder.

[dps]

So, has the debate amused you long enough yet?

[Valmy]

Is this thread Eddie's worst fear?

Anyway nice necro-job.