Opinion ID: 1203744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: implied warranty liability

Text: Dealing with the factual situation presented in Carolina Winds , the Court of Appeals correctly held that our decision in Arvai v. Shaw , 289 S.C. 161, 345 S.E. (2d) 715 (1986) prevents the buyers from recovering on an implied warranty of habitability theory. Arvai and Lane v. Trenholm Bldg. Co. , 267 S.C. 497, 229 S.E. (2d) 728 (1976) indicate that, except with regard to a mere lender as discussed earlier herein, the warranty of habitability arises or springs from the sale of the home. This warranty can be used to impose liability on a seller, as in Lane , who is not also a builder. However, the builder may not escape warranty liability by refraining from selling the building. As recognized by the Court of Appeals in Carolina Winds , a builder who contracts to construct a dwelling impliedly warrants that the work undertaken will be performed in a careful, diligent, workmanlike manner. See Hill v. Polar Pantries , 219 S.C. 263, 64 S.E. (2d) 885 (1951). This is an implied warranty of workmanlike service, and is distinct from the implied warranty of habitability. The Court of Appeals characterized this warranty liability as arising from the construction contract to which the builder is a party, not some subsequent contract of sale to which he is a stranger. Carolina Winds , 297 S.C. at 84, 374 S.E. (2d) at 903. We have been steadfast in holding that privity of contract as a defense to an implied warranty action is abolished in this State. See, e.g., Terlinde , 275 S.C. at 398, 271 S.E. (2d) at 769. In JKT Co. v. Hardwick , 274 S.C. 413, 417-18, 265 S.E. (2d) 510, 512-13 (1980), we stated: The erosion of the concept of privity has been a legal phenomenon for more than a decade, and this Court has not been reluctant to contribute to its demise. .... ... [L]ack of privity as a defense to a cause of action has been of questionable vitality in South Carolina. Today, we seek to still all whispers of its continued existence. Hence, a purchaser may sue a builder on his implied warranty of service, despite the purchaser's lack of contractual privity. Any contrary implication by the Court of Appeals in Carolina Winds is rejected.