Opinion ID: 2616171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: caveat emptor and implied warranty

Text: Implied warranties of one sort or another apply to the sale of an automobile, Testo v. Russ Dunmire Oldsmobile, Inc., 16 Wn. App. 39, 554 P.2d 349, 83 A.L.R.3d 680 (1976); food, Jeffries v. Clark's Restaurant Enters., 20 Wn. App. 428, 580 P.2d 1103 (1978); aircraft fuel, Seattle Flight Serv., Inc. v. Auburn, 24 Wn. App. 749, 604 P.2d 975 (1979); motor homes, Massingale v. Northwest Cortez, Inc., 27 Wn. App. 749, 620 P.2d 1009 (1980); permanent waves, Carpenter v. Best's Apparel, Inc., 4 Wn. App. 439, 481 P.2d 924 (1971); wheat, Haner v. Quincy Farm Chems., Inc., 97 Wn.2d 753, 649 P.2d 828 (1982); hay, Libke v. Craig, 35 Wn.2d 870, 216 P.2d 189 (1950); propane gas, Kasey v. Suburban Gas Heat of Kennewick, Inc., 60 Wn.2d 468, 374 P.2d 549 (1962); commercial paper, RCW 62A.3-417; and investment securities, RCW 62A.8-306(2). In each of these examples, the doctrine of caveat emptor has given way to the protection of purchasers and investors, largely as a result of legal reform pioneered by court decision, which ultimately was codified in the Uniform Commercial Code. As applied to the sale of real property, however, the doctrine of caveat emptor has had lingering effect. Bearman, Caveat Emptor in Sales of Realty  Recent Assaults Upon the Rule, 14 Vand. L. Rev. 541, 542 (1961). The doctrine of caveat emptor became imbedded in the common law during the 17th and 18th centuries. See Hamilton, The Ancient Maxim Caveat Emptor, 40 Yale L.J. 1133 (1931). Under this doctrine, [t]he vendee took the property at his risk. If he failed to discover defects, caveat emptor prevented him from maintaining an action against the vendor. Petersen v. Hubschman Constr. Co., 76 Ill.2d 31, 38, 389 N.E.2d 1154 (1979). The rule was based upon an arms-length transaction between the seller and buyer and contemplated comparable skill and experience. Sloat v. Matheny, 625 P.2d 1031, 1033 (Colo. 1981) (quoting Tavares v. Horstman, 542 P.2d 1275 (Wyo. 1975)). At the end of World War II, houses were in great demand and were mass produced in amazing quantities. Almost inevitably ... instances of poor quality resulted due to hurried construction and skimping on materials. Vendees ... turned to the courts for relief. Bearman, 14 Vand. L. Rev. at 542. In response, the courts extended, reshaped and in some instances distorted other areas of the law to fit their needs. Bearman, 14 Vand. L. Rev. at 543. This response constitutes a dramatic illustration of an important characteristic of the common law itself: an instance of the courts' filling what they felt was a gap in the law's protection by the utilization of dynamic and flexible legal concepts when the more archaic and immutable ones failed them. Bearman, 14 Vand. L. Rev. at 543. The implied warranties of workmanlike construction and habitability arose in recognition of the anachronism of the common law rule of caveat emptor. Sloat, 625 P.2d at 1033. By implying these warranties, courts recognized that the seller and buyer are not in an equal bargaining position and the buyer is forced to rely on the skill and knowledge of the builder. Tavares, 542 P.2d at 1282. The relative position of the builder-vendor to the buyer dictates that the builder bear the risk that the house is fit for its intended use. Sloat, at 1033. As noted by the Supreme Court of Colorado: These implied warranties are also consistent with the expectations of the parties. Clearly every builder-vendor holds himself out, expressly or impliedly, as having the expertise necessary to construct a livable dwelling. It is equally as obvious that almost every buyer acts upon these representations and expects that the new house he is buying ... will be suitable for use as a home. Otherwise, there would be no sale. Sloat, at 1033 (quoting McDonald v. Mianecki, 79 N.J. 275, 289, 398 A.2d 1283 (1979)). Another reason for implying warranties is to inhibit the unscrupulous, fly-by-night, or unskilled builder and `to discourage much of the sloppy work and jerry building that has become perceptible over the years.' Capra v. Smith, 372 So.2d 321, 323 (Ala. 1979) (quoting Cochran v. Keeton, 47 Ala. App. 194, 198, 252 So.2d 307 (1970)).