| ICSC Legal Database - Cases | Monday, February 22, 1999 05:01 PM |
| Citation: |
| Aronsohn v. Mandara, 98 N.J. 92, 484 A.2d 675 (1984). |
| Issue: |
| Whether, in the absence of an express contractual provision concerning workmanship, a covenant that the |
| contract between contractors and vendors would be performed in reasonably good and workmanlike manner was |
| implied, and whether, in absence of a non-ass ignability clause in the contract, the contractors were immunized |
| from their contractual obligation because the vendors transferred the property to purchasers. |
| Facts: |
| Owners of a residential property entered into a contract with defendant-contractor to add a patio to the rear of |
| their house. The patio was constructed in 1974. Plaintiffs purchased the home from the original owner in August, |
| 1975. The purchase agreement provided that the contract was subject to "a satisfactory engineering |
| inspection"; that the agreement was made "upon the knowledge of the parties as to the value of whatever |
| buildings are upon the land and not on any representations made as to character o r quality", and that "no |
| representations have been made by any of the parties". In 1978, plaintiffs noticed that the patio was beginning to |
| separate from the wall of the house and some of the slabs forming the patio floor were beginning to rise and |
| that t he outside patio wall was |
| beginning to buckle.Plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant alleging strict liability, negligence |
| and breaches of express and implied warranties. At trial, an expert testified that the construction was improper. |
| Th e Trial Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed. |
| Holding: |
| Reversed. The State Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial. Where there is no express contractual |
| provision concerning work manship, the law implies a covenant that the contract will be performed in a |
| reasonably good and workmanlike manner. Defen dant's implied promise to construct the patio in a workmanlike |
| manner may be analogized to a real property covenant that runs with the land. The benefits of such covenants |
| touch and concern the property and should flow with the ownership despite the absen ce of privily between the |
| contractor and the present owner. To require privily between the contractor and the home owner in such a |
| situation would defeat the purpose of the implied warranty of good workmanship and could leave innocent home |
| owners without the remedy for negligently built structures in their home. While the defendants may be liable to |
| plaintiff for violating an implied provision of their contract with the original owner, plaintiffs may not sustain a |
| cause of action on any express provision in the contract. Nor may plaintiffs maintain a suit on a theory of |
| implied warranty of habitability. The contract does not involve a defect affecting the essential habitability of the |
| home. The doctrine of implied warranty of habitability is, therefore, I napplicable. On the other hand, a contractor |
| has a duty to persons other than the one with whom he made the original contract, to carry out his work in a |
| careful and prudent manner and he may be responsible to third parties for damages proximately caused by his |
| failure to exercise due care. The Court here felt that it was not necessary to decide the validity of plaintiffs' |
| negligence claim, since the contractor's negligence would constitute a breach of his implied promise to |
| construct the patio in a workm anlike manner. While the evidence was conflicting on this point, the plaintiffs |
| made a prima facie case, which required remanding the matter for a new trial. |
| Classification 1: |
| Covenants/Clauses |
| 00136 - Legal Update - Winter 1984 |
|
