Opinion ID: 2344845
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Handle's Implied Warranty Of Adequate Specifications Claim Is Waived.

Text: The implied warranty of adequate specifications is a construction law principle, by which contractors impliedly warrant the adequacy of the plans and specifications which they supply and require subcontractors to follow. [5] Under this principle, the contractor warrants that the contract is capable of performance. In addition, a project owner impliedly warrants that adhering to the contract terms will result in a satisfactory product. [6] The implied warranty applies specifically to design specifications such as detailed measurements, tolerances, materials, i.e., elaborate instructions on how to perform the contract. [7] It does not apply to performance specifications. [8] In Alaska, as in other jurisdictions, [i]f defective specifications cause the contractor to incur extra costs in performing the contract, then the contractor may recover those costs that result from breach of the implied warranty. [9] For instance, in Northern Corp. v. Chugach Electric Ass'n, [10] Chugach Electric Association insisted on contractual performance by Northern using a method which proved to be impossiblehauling rock across a frozen lake. [11] We deemed Chugach to have breached the implied warranty that the contract could be performed. [12] Citing to Chugach, Handle claims that Norcon's bid schedule was defective and breached an implied warranty that the plans and specifications would be sufficien[t]. But Handle failed to place the plans in the record, precluding any appellate review of them. For this reason, this argument is waived. We also reject Handle's argument for a second reason: The legal theory of implied warranty is inapposite to this case. There is no dispute that (1) the drawings called for double pier foundations and (2) Handle produced the product they were meant to produce. Handle has never alleged that performance was impossible or that it has incurred unexpected costs due specifically to structural defects inherent in Norcon's requested design. The fact that Handle built the foundations in accordance with the drawings leaves no question that the requested design was feasible and that consequently, the plans and specifications were not defective.