Problem Sets Flashcards
Generally, the defendant is liable for harm caused by foreseeable intervening forces that occur between the time of the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s injury. When an intervening force is unforeseeable, a defendant will still be liable for his acts (or omissions) if the result was nevertheless foreseeable. If both the intervening cause and the harm are unforeseeable, however, the intervening cause becomes a superseding cause, and the defendant’s liability is cut off by that superseding cause. Here, if both the intervening force (the copper theft) and the resulting harm (the injury from the cornice collapse) were unforeseeable, the theft acts as a superseding cause and cuts off the warehouse owner’s liability.
Generally, the defendant is liable for harm caused by foreseeable intervening forces that occur between the time of the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s injury. When an intervening force is unforeseeable, a defendant will still be liable for his acts (or omissions) if the result was nevertheless foreseeable. If both the intervening cause and the harm are unforeseeable, however, the intervening cause becomes a superseding cause, and the defendant’s liability is cut off by that superseding cause. Here, if both the intervening force (the copper theft) and the resulting harm (the injury from the cornice collapse) were unforeseeable, the theft acts as a superseding cause and cuts off the warehouse owner’s liability.
The warranty of quiet enjoyment is a future covenant that is breached only upon interference with possession. It runs to successive grantees, such as the developer, as well as to the original grantee. Since the charity action interferes with the developer’s possession of the lot, this warranty has been breached, and the developer may assert that breach against the nephew. Answer choice A is incorrect because the warranty against encumbrances is a present covenant that is breached by the existence of an encumbrance, such as an easement, at the time of conveyance of the property by the grantor. The charity’s lawful ownership of the lot does not constitute an encumbrance, and in most states, a subsequent grantee (here, the developer) cannot sue the original grantor (here, the nephew) for breach of a present covenant. Answer choice C is incorrect because although the nephew did breach the warranty of the right to convey, this warranty is a present covenant. In most states, a subsequent grantee cannot sue the original grantor for breach of a present covenant. Answer choice D is incorrect because although the nephew did breach the warranty of seisin, the developer would not be able to sue the nephew for breach of a present covenant in most states.
The warranty of quiet enjoyment is a future covenant that is breached only upon interference with possession. It runs to successive grantees, such as the developer, as well as to the original grantee. Since the charity action interferes with the developer’s possession of the lot, this warranty has been breached, and the developer may assert that breach against the nephew. Answer choice A is incorrect because the warranty against encumbrances is a present covenant that is breached by the existence of an encumbrance, such as an easement, at the time of conveyance of the property by the grantor. The charity’s lawful ownership of the lot does not constitute an encumbrance, and in most states, a subsequent grantee (here, the developer) cannot sue the original grantor (here, the nephew) for breach of a present covenant. Answer choice C is incorrect because although the nephew did breach the warranty of the right to convey, this warranty is a present covenant. In most states, a subsequent grantee cannot sue the original grantor for breach of a present covenant. Answer choice D is incorrect because although the nephew did breach the warranty of seisin, the developer would not be able to sue the nephew for breach of a present covenant in most states.
