Title: Baldwin v. Priem's Pride Motel, Inc.
Citation: 224 Kan. 432, 580 P.2d 1326
Docket Number: 48,810
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 1978

224 Kan. 432 (1978)
580 P.2d 1326
LOREN L. BALDWIN and ELIZABETH A. BALDWIN, Appellants,
v.
PRIEM'S PRIDE MOTEL, INC., Appellee.
No. 48,810

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 15, 1978.
Robert H. Royer, Jr., of Abilene, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellants.
John F. Christner, of Abilene, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an action brought under the Consumer Protection Act (K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 50-623, et seq.). The alleged defective product was a home sold to plaintiffs which was under construction. The trial court found this type of transaction was not within the purview of the act and entered summary judgment for the defendant. From this judgment plaintiffs appeal.
The facts as they relate to the issues before us are not seriously in dispute. On November 13, 1974, plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as buyers) entered into a contract with defendant (hereinafter referred to as seller) for the purchase of real estate on which a residence was being built by seller. The purchase price was $37,500.00. The contract provided that the buyers had the right to select inside and outside paint colors. The contract further provided that it would be null and void unless the contract terms were completed by January 15, 1975. The entire transaction was expressly contingent upon the buyers securing adequate financing. Prior to the time of the execution of the contract, the seller orally advised the buyers that they would have the right to select panelling and that the home would be built in "first-class condition." On January 11, 1975, the parties entered into a second contract which extended the completion date to February 15, 1975, and enumerated six specific items that were to be corrected (these were primarily remedial in nature). The second contract acknowledged that $34,500.00 of the purchase price had been *433 paid. The seller was further required to deliver a general warranty deed to the property to the buyers. The buyers were required to deliver to the escrow agent a general warranty deed in the seller's favor. This latter deed was to be held by the escrow agent until performance under the contract was completed. If the $3,000.00 were paid, this latter deed was to be returned to the buyers. If the $3,000.00 were not paid, then the deed would be delivered to seller for recording.
On February 15, 1975, the buyers paid the $3,000.00 balance and occupied the premises. Apparently, at least partial occupancy started in early February. The buyers were not satisfied with the construction when they paid the final $3,000.00 and moved in, but did so on the advice of their attorney. Just prior to this payment, the seller refused to discuss the defects with the buyers. The buyers claim 36 defects existed in the house and that they expended monies and personal labor to correct some and that further expenditures would be required to correct other defects. This action was brought under the Consumer Protection Act. The buyers sought $2,000.00 for each of the 36 defects. After the action was commenced, buyers sold the home for $40,000.00 and moved to the state of California. Subsequently, the trial court granted summary judgment to the seller, stating:
It should be noted that neither before the trial court nor this court have the buyers stated their action was brought on alternative theories, i.e., Consumer Protection Act or contract law. The buyers have chosen to base their entire cause of action on the Consumer Protection Act. The propriety of the trial court's decision must be determined in the context of the issues before it.
The principal issue before this court is whether or not the transaction in question is within the purview of the Consumer *434 Protection Act (K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 50-623, et seq.). The buyers assert that the statement that the home would be constructed in a "first-class condition," followed by "shoddy" construction, as well as the installation of a panelling of a different color than that selected, constituted deceptive and unconscionable practices prohibited by the Act. The portions of the Act (1975 Supp.) which the buyers contend authorize this action are as follows:
"....
"50-624. Definitions. ...
"....
"(1) Representations that:
*436 In his deposition the buyer, Loren L. Baldwin, testified that he was relying on the "first-class condition" statement as the basis for the alleged violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
In determining the propriety of the summary judgment, the transaction, in its entirety, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the buyers. Accordingly, although the defects are disputed, we must assume the defects existed as claimed and that the seller stated the house would be built in "first-class condition." We also know, from the second contract, that the buyers knew of defects and included them for remedial work. The deposition of the buyer, Loren L. Baldwin, shows he knew the listed defects were not all corrected when he completed the contract and paid the balance due. In addition he knew of other defects and, also, that the seller would not even discuss them with him. The statement as to "first-class condition" is innocent "puffing," to be expected by a consumer.
Under the totality of the circumstances of this case, we find that the trial court correctly found that the transaction was not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and properly entered summary judgment for the defendant seller. The balance of the issues raised need not be determined by virtue of this conclusion.
The judgment is affirmed.