What is the legal test for an implied warranty in a contract to install a roof that does not leak?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Sunbeam Construction Co. v. Fisci, 2 Cal.App.3d 181, 82 Cal.Rptr. 446 (Cal. App. 1969):
For his contention of implied warranty in spite of compliance with the plans and specifications, plaintiff relies mainly on Kuitems v. Covell (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 482, 231 P.2d 552, where the court held that in a contract to install a roof covering there was an implied warranty that the roof would not leak. However, there the situation was completely different from the case at bench. There, the court found that the defendants had used insufficient and improper materials. Further, the court found that the owner had informed the defendants that they would be required to provide drains for the roof, which the defendants did not do.
Likewise, the situation in Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 573, 12 Cal.Rptr. 257, 360 P.2d 897, also relied upon by plaintiff, may be distinguished from the situation in the instant case. In Hobbs there were no plans and the only specification was that the radiant heating system which Hobbs was to install
Page 450
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
