View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 111 -including the declaration of co-ownership that will govern their communallife.5. Given the importance the appellants attached to constructing a dwellingon a communally owned balcony, the respondent co-owners couldreasonably have expected the appellants to have satisfied this concern beforethey purchased.2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)6. Purchasers who do not take the trouble to read the rules should notenjoy greater rights under the contract than the diligent and conscientiouspurchasers who do.7. This particular immovable was only one of several potentialimmovables in which the appellants could have chosen to invest.8. The balconies were designated as commonly owned property, althoughset aside for the use of the co-owner.9. The rules prohibited construction of a dwelling on the balconies of thebuilding at the time the appellants made their investment (although theduration of the succah was only nine days a year).10. The co-owners had offered the alternative of a communal succah in thegarden.