Stambovsky v. Ackley New York, at the time, adhered to property law doctrine of "caveat emptor". The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision regarding the rescission action, however, as it went on to note that "haunting" was not a condition that a buyer or potential buyer of real property can and should be able to ascertain upon reasonable inspection of the property. According to the court, though the doctrine of "caveat emptor" would normally operate to bar a rescission action, causing seller to have no duty to disclose information about the property to be sold (but also preventing the seller from affirmatively
Paulette Caveat signatories did not believe that Treaty No. 8 and No. 11 extinguished their Aboriginal rights to the land and that the Treaties were unfulfilled. Justice Morrow agreed with these witnesses and ruled that the Chiefs had established a case for claiming Aboriginal rights sufficiently to warrant the filing of a caveat. Although the ability to register the caveat was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Morrow's findings in respect to Aboriginal rights were not overturned. The "Paulette" case resulted in the initiation of the Dene/Metis comprehensive land claim process. The "Paulette" and "Calder" cases prompted the Government of