Ball J. first looked at the terms of the assignment and found that the deed provided that „the agent as economic owner and the valuable consideration … assign to the agent all the absolute benefits of construction guarantees“ (add the mention). His tribute noted that the transfer provisions did have to be interpreted in the context of the entry of P-O and Tzaneros into the facts, knowing that there had been cracks in the sidewalks and that there must therefore be a right against WGC for breach of the guarantee. In addition, His Honour concluded that the common and natural meaning of the words „all the benefits of construction guarantees“ includes the right to sue for infringement prior to the date of surrender. His tribute was the parties` intention to limit the surrender to the offences that were committed after the transfer, „they said it explicitly. WgC submitted that it did not agree with the assignment. In particular, WGC relied on the fact that the letter provided that consent to the assignment had been given „from the date of sale.“ This argument failed for two reasons. First, he noted that consent could not influence the scope and found that „either WGC accepted the assignment or not“ and that the letter clearly functioned as the consent required in point 9.1 of the terms and conditions of the contract. Second, it could not have „been construed as a limitation of consent with respect to the scope of the assignment „from the date of sale“ if the letter was properly written. Instead, this date has been interpreted to identify the date from which the transfer takes effect. His tribute therefore established that the transfer allowed Tzaneros to sue WGC for breach of contractual guarantees that occurred prior to the day of the transfer.
Tzaneros` complaint against WGC for breach of warranty was successful and damages were awarded. The tacit guarantee of an assignee in the context of a transfer guarantee is as follows: in the D-C contract, WGC has given certain guarantees as to treatment and adequacy. The D-C contract also provided that neither party could withdraw from a right or benefit of the contract without the prior agreement of the other. At the end of the work, the lease of P-O on the land was transferred to Tzaneros and P-O entered into a deed with Tzaneros, which purported to transfer WGC`s guarantees under the D-C contract>. guarantor`s agreement), although there are probably some restrictions on the number of interest rates or on the judge who was found in favour of the applicant. His tribute established that the language of the mission, that is, „all the benefits of construction guarantees,“ included the right to take legal action in the event of an offence already committed. The judge also declared the defence „no loss.“ The alliance dealt with the question of whether a subsequent purchaser of the property had been prejudiced as a result of breaches of the security committed by the owner himself.