British Columbia Case Summary

This is a formal complaint submitted to BHP/DCA against Frank Pinelli, Quantum Developers LLC (Developer) Condominium Association: Cedar Woods Condominium Association (Board) and Jim Polos, Midlantic Property Management.

The Association alleged in its lawsuit that certain elements of the property were not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner including 1) failure to properly install and flash windows and other exterior penetrations; 2) properly caulk the exterior penetrations; 3) failure to properly install the weather resistive barrier; 4) failure to properly to install the stucco exterior; 5) failure to properly install the EIFS exterior and 6) failure to install brick exterior.

The insureds, who live in a separate house on the same property, refute all of the plaintiffs’ allegations with the exception of their concession that a portion of the siding is missing from one of the exterior walls. They explained that during the renovation of the house, which was completed approximately one year before the plaintiffs took possession, they had a window removed from

Next are the Options proceedings. This proceeding relates more to the transactions made by the directors for their own benefits as well for the ones associated to them. The specific parties in this proceedings are; Environinvest Ltd, James Patrick Downey the liquidator of the company, and S.T.Y. (Afforestation) Pty Ltd as the plaintiffs. Roger Neil Pescott, Caroline Pescott, Euan Pescott, Blackburne Pty Ltd, Brabourne Pty Ltd, Mt Ross Pastoral Pty Ltd, Eurambeen Pty Ltd, Maridale (Victoria) Pty Ltd, Carnac Pty Ltd, Clive Randal Dossetor and Grant Anthony Robertson as the list of defendants.

The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).

In our opinion, if the claim has been filed, Ocwen should not have foreclosed (and it is likely the total debt would have been paid in full). As a result, it opened the Trust up to ownership of the property, code violation expenses and all

Although Mr. Carr’s property does meet the criteria of Section 546 (0.1) in the Act of his property being “detrimental to the surrounding area” and causing decline in local property value and showing serious signs of disregard for maintenance and upkeep (Municipal Government Act Section 546, Pg. 289), the towns action were not lawful. Notification

Defendant SARAH MINER, owner, and operator of the Portola apartment complex, recently denied Plaintiff DARLAWILLIAMS, a former tenant, application to continue leasing her unit at the complex. Plaintiff subsequently brought suit against Defendant, alleging discrimination as the basis for her denial. The Plaintiff 's case against Defendant, however, is without merit. Defendant denied Plaintiff 's application because she received several noise complaints throughout her tenancy, disrupting the peaceful residential community. Furthermore, Defendant denied Plaintiff 's application due to her failure to keep her unit in good condition; resulting in substantial damage to the unit and approximately $3,500 in repair costs.

At this hearing I had Mr. George testify he operates Robert George Design Group, LTD. That he knows the claimant and has known him since around 2007. He describes his work as doing landscaping, outdoor masonry and patio work. He testified he has a subcontractor relationship with the claimant. He said the claimant’s expertise were in such things as roofing, sheet rocking, painting and equipment maintenance.

Sanders does hold title to the disputed parcel. All the elements were met in this manner. When Hibbard cleared his property in 1957, he was not quite sure of the boundaries. He cleared the area up to a large drainage ditch and installed an access road to establish the property line. He preceded to open a trailer park. He was approached later that year by Mr. McMurray who was the property owner on the east side. After McMurray had a survey done, he informed Hibbard that the access road infringed on his property by 20 feet. No action was taken at this time by either party. Therefore, McMurray demonstrated he had actual knowledge that the adverse party had taken possession of the land. Sometime later, Hibbard sold the trailer park to Gilbert

As is all too often the case, a payment dispute accompanied the conclusion of this substantial construction project. In early 2007, Metropolitan refused to pay WCS several million dollars due for the labor and materials furnished to the project. (E. 917). As such, WCS filed a complaint to establish a mechanic’s lien. (Id.). In consideration for WCS’s release of

I spoke with David Architectural’s attorney and she is going to ask Judge Brennen for an additional thirty days to decide how to proceed on the fourth-party complaint against SCB and Arkema. The reason being she received roughly 70,000 project documents from Power and the plaintiff in the last two weeks and has not been able to get through them all. I asked what she is looking for and she said her consultant believes the undercoating was not applied to the railings. As a result, she is looking to determine if SCB directed that the undercoating did not need to be applied. I responded, “Even if we did, which I doubt, so what? You still would not have a negligence claim because of the Economic Loss Doctrine.” In response, she stated that she is looking to see if there was something that brings the claim within the exceptions. I told her the facts of the claim do not fall within the recognized

This lawsuit, which the plaintiff filed in Cook County, Illinois, arises out of an alleged breach of contract and alleged breach of implied warranty of workmanlike quality for services by the insured, Buckingham Interiors and Design LLC, related to the design and interior decorating services that the insured provided at the plaintiff’s residence.

The defendants, Roffey Bros, were party to a building contract with an external party; such indenture was the “main building contract”, which contained a penalty clause for the job falling behind of the completion date. The requirement of the latter required carpentry work to be performed on 27 flats within the building. Consequently, the defendants entered into a subcontract with the plaintiff, Mr. Williams, whom would perform such obligation. The original contract, established that the Plaintiff would receive £20,000 to satisfactorily carry out his carpentry duties. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff fell into financial worries, as a result of the original sum not being satisfactory for a profitable job. Subsequently, the defendants, in order to evade the penalty clause, made an oral agreement with the Plaintiff, proclaiming that he would be paid an additional £10,300 at the rate of £575 per wholly completed flat. In reliance of such agreement, the Plaintiff sustained work for 7

The plaintiff holds that the latent defects in the office space are a result of defective building works and thus claims that there has been a breach of contract as the builder acted negligently as they had a duty to take reasonable care in the construction of the offices.