Opinion ID: 1171258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was There a Warranty?

Text: Moore admitted on the witness stand he did not ask Terry to guarantee there would be a certain flowage of water from the well. His attorney likewise stated in oral argument there is no claim of a warranty at the beginning. However, the attorney does claim, when Terry reached the well's total depth, he said it would produce 400 gallons of water per hour continuously. It is argued this was a guarantee which Terry can be held to. The transcript of evidence shows Terry made a pump test of the well, running open discharge 24 hours a day for several days. The result of the test was noted on the well log which Terry kept, in these words: Well will produce over 400 G.P.H. continuously. From this, counsel for appellee-Moore argues there was a guarantee this well would produce that much water forever. The only authorities cited by appellee for his contention relative to a warranty are § 34-2-313, W.S. 1957, 1967 Cum.Supp.; and Nielson v. Hermansen, 109 Utah 180, 166 P.2d 536, 537. The statute referred to states, any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods will conform to the affirmation or promise. The Utah case cited states, a representation of fact which would naturally tend to and does induce a bargain is a warranty. Counsel seems to overlook that, regardless of what Terry may have said or written about 400 gallons of water per hour, it was not a part of the basis of the bargain, neither did it induce a bargain. The parties had their bargain and contract before the well was started. No new bargain or contract was made when the test was run. Counsel suggests the statement was intended to induce payment for the well, but Moore had already bargained and promised to pay for the well. In any event, we construe the statement concerning 400 gallons per hour to relate only to the volume of water and not to what might or might not happen to equipment or to the productive formation in the future. The testimony throughout the record shows an abundance of water. As a matter of fact, it is apparent there was much too much water for the kind of formation it was in. Plaintiff's witnesses stated many times there was plenty of water and no limit to the water. One expert witness for plaintiff told of bailing operations and getting 20 gallons per minute, which would far exceed 400 gallons per hour. Moore's grandson, who farmed Moore's place, testified for five or six months the well was real good. But aside from our reasons for believing no warranty was made by Terry, the trial judge, who tried this case without a jury, found the evidence shows that the well was improperly drilled by defendant, was unusable, and that plaintiff should recover the amount paid to defendant. There was no finding that a guarantee had been given by defendant. We are not triers or finders of fact, and in the absence of something to indicate that the trial judge may have found a warranty to have been given, we will not approve the judgment on the basis of a warranty.