Opinion ID: 1824722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Liability for Negligent Construction.

Text: The judgment also included $385.65 for the defendant's negligent work in constructing the apartment building in question. We note that with reference to the duty on the part of the defendant to make repairs, the pleadings are devoid of any allegations showing the source of such duty. When the defendant offered testimony as to the absence of any written warranties, such testimony was objected to and not permitted by the court. It would thus appear that it was the intention  of the defendant's counsel to challenge the existence of a duty to perform the various acts of which the plaintiffs complain. A portion of the colloquy between the court and counsel on this question is quoted: Q. Now, did Mr. Wynhoff give you any warranties, written warranties, concerning the structure you were living in? Mr. Silbar: Now, just a minute, I am going to object to this upon the grounds that this The Court: Let's see whether thiswhere is the deed? It might be a warranty deed. I don't know. That might answer it. Mr. Finnegan: There is a warranty deed. The Court: All right, then. The warranty, that's enough. Mr. Finnegan: Q. So to make the question more specific, do you have anything in writing from Mr. Wynhoff which warrants that your basement will not leak? Mr. Silbar: Well, now The Court: I don't see why you are going into that. The court will consider all these things. I don't think it's necessary the seller give a warranty to every single thing there is in that building. I don't want to say anything more about it. I think the warranty deed would cover that, the warranty title. Mr. Finnegan: A warranty title. The Court: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) The Court: We won't argue that at this time. From the foregoing it is apparent that the trial judge was under the erroneous impression that a warranty in a standard warranty deed runs beyond a warranty of title. A warranty deed, by definition, contains a covenant that the grantee will not be interrupted by a paramount title. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.), 1759. Under sec. 235.02, Stats., no covenants are implied in a conveyance of real estate. See Rundell, Covenants for Title in Wisconsin, 2 Wisconsin Law Review (1923), 65. Clearly, the warranty deed did not warrant  that the basement would be waterproof; it warrants title, not fitness or quality of construction. The record also shows that the defendant proposed to prove that there were plans and specifications in existence and that the defendant had complied with them. Upon the trial judge's theory that a warranty of title also warranted against defects in construction, the defendant was erroneously denied the opportunity to prove that the construction was consistent with such plans and specifications. A seller may be liable under an oral agreement concerning the quality of construction even though such understanding is not a part of the contract for sale. See Claveau v. Plantier (1960), 102 N. H. 487, 161 Atl. (2d) 166; 4 Williston, Contracts (3d ed.), p. 1127, sec. 645; Restatement, 1 Contracts, p. 335, sec. 240 (1) (b). This court has also ruled that a building contractor may be liable for latent defects in connection with negligent construction whether or not the parties had an express contract thereon. Fisher v. Simon (1961), 15 Wis. (2d) 207, 216, 112 N. W. (2d) 705. Therefore, it is possible that the plaintiffs have a valid cause of action for negligent performance; it is also possible that the defendant substantially complied with the specifications for this construction. In view of the erroneous theory of law adopted by the trial court, we have serious doubts that the true issues have been resolved, and, therefore, as to this phase of the case we believe that there must be a new trial in the interests of justice, pursuant to sec. 251.09, Stats.