Latent Defect Rescission: Seller Knowledge Not Required

A purchaser, having discovered a latent defect in the object acquired after its delivery, sued the seller for rescission of the sale and damages, arguing that the seller knew or should have known of the defect, which rendered the object unfit for its intended use. The court of appeal upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the claim, finding insufficient proof that the seller was aware of the defect or that the defect was so serious as to imply bad faith on the seller's part, thereby precluding the rescission remedy which requires proof of fraud or gross negligence on the seller's part regarding the defect. The highest court quashed this ruling, reasoning that the seller's obligation to warrant against latent defects applies even if the seller was unaware of them, and rescission is an inherent consequence of a latent defect that substantially impairs the object's use, meaning the lower court erred by exclusively requiring proof of the seller's knowledge or bad faith for the rescission claim.