Return to Answer

Not in tort

You have tagged your question tort. The other answers explain why there is no tort liability.

Case 1 is a breach of contract claim

Assuming that meeting minimum indoor air quality standards was a term of the contract, then the purchaser has not got what they bargained for and has a legal straightforward, although possibly technically difficult remedy: the builder fixes the problem or pays the remediation costs. This type of dispute is so common that it can be considered routine.

Case 2 is also a breach of contract claim

Again, the purchaser did not get what they bargained for: uncontaminated food.

If it hasn’t been consumed, then they are entitled to return it for a refund or replacement.

If they have consumed it, they have no case until they suffer some loss.

Not about the potential harms

Note that neither contract claim is about "liability for long-term potential harms."

Not in tort

You have tagged your question tort. The other answers explain why there is no tort liability.

Case 1 is a breach of contract claim

Assuming that meeting minimum indoor air quality standards was a term of the contract, then the purchaser has not got what they bargained for and has a legally straightforward, although possibly technically difficult remedy: the builder fixes the problem or pays the remediation costs. This type of dispute is so common that it can be considered routine.

Case 2 is also a breach of contract claim

Again, the purchaser did not get what they bargained for: uncontaminated food.

If it hasn’t been consumed, then they are entitled to return it for a refund or replacement.

If they have consumed it, they have no case until they suffer some loss.

Not about the potential harms

Note that neither contract claim is about "liability for long-term potential harms."

Not in tort

You have tagged your question tort. The other answers explain why there is no tort liability.

Case 1 is a breach of contract claim

Assuming that meeting minimum indoor air quality standards was a term of the contract, then the purchaser has not got what they bargained for and has a legal straightforward, although possibly technically difficult remedy: the builder fixes the problem or pays the remediation costs. This type of dispute is so common that it can be considered routine.

Case 2 is also a breach of contract claim

Again, the purchaser did not get what they bargained for: uncontaminated food.

If it hasn’t been consumed, then they are entitled to return it for a refund or replacement.

If they have consumed it, they have no case until they suffer some loss.

Not about the potential harms

Note that neither contract claim depends on the potential later harms you ask about in the question.

Not in tort

You have tagged your question tort. The other answers explain why there is no tort liability.

Case 1 is a breach of contract claim

Assuming that meeting minimum indoor air quality standards was a term of the contract, then the purchaser has not got what they bargained for and has a legal straightforward, although possibly technically difficult remedy: the builder fixes the problem or pays the remediation costs. This type of dispute is so common that it can be considered routine.

Case 2 is also a breach of contract claim

Again, the purchaser did not get what they bargained for: uncontaminated food.

If it hasn’t been consumed, then they are entitled to return it for a refund or replacement.

If they have consumed it, they have no case until they suffer some loss.

Not about the potential harms

Note that neither contract claim is about "liability for long-term potential harms."

Case 1 is a breach of contract claim

Assuming that meeting minimum indoor air quality standards was a term of the contract, then the purchaser has not got what they bargained for and has a legal straightforward, although possibly technically difficult remedy: the builder fixes the problem or pays the remediation costs. This type of dispute is so common that it can be considered routine.

Case 2 is also a breach of contract claim

Again, the purchaser did not get what they bargained for: uncontaminated food.

If it hasn’t been consumed, then they are entitled to return it for a refund or replacement.

If they have consumed it, they have no case until they suffer some loss.

Not about the potential harms

Note that neither contract claim depends on the potential later harms you ask about in the question.

Not in tort

You have tagged your question tort. The other answers explain why there is no tort liability.

Case 1 is a breach of contract claim

Assuming that meeting minimum indoor air quality standards was a term of the contract, then the purchaser has not got what they bargained for and has a legal straightforward, although possibly technically difficult remedy: the builder fixes the problem or pays the remediation costs. This type of dispute is so common that it can be considered routine.

Case 2 is also a breach of contract claim

Again, the purchaser did not get what they bargained for: uncontaminated food.

If it hasn’t been consumed, then they are entitled to return it for a refund or replacement.

If they have consumed it, they have no case until they suffer some loss.

Not about the potential harms

Note that neither contract claim depends on the potential later harms you ask about in the question.