Opinion ID: 2385358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plumbing in the south wall

Text: During the winter following the completion of the patio room (1977-78), the plumbing lines in the south wall froze and burst. Price repaired the pipes without charge. During the next winter (1978-79), the same pipes froze and burst again. Price again returned to repair the damage and informed appellant that there was insufficient insulation in the wall to protect the pipes from freezing. Price allegedly represented that insulation would be added. On this occasion, Price's plumber installed shut-off valves because the plumber believed that sufficient insulation could not be installed in the wall. The architect, Atherton, was consulted but allegedly did nothing to resolve the problem. Appellant further claimed that on or about December 15, 1981, he used the shut-off valves that had been installed in 1979; but that during the winter of 1981-82 [4] the pipes froze and burst for the third time, resulting in damage that was not evident until appellant turned on the water supply in the patio room in March, 1982. On this occasion, the contractor, Price, refused to make the necessary repairs without charge. As a result, appellant engaged another contractor who informed him that there was still virtually no insulation in the south wall. Based upon the above purported defects in the design and construction of the patio's south wall and the related plumbing, appellant set forth three theories of liability against Price and Atherton: (a) that appellees breached their contract to build the patio room according to the terms of the agreement, (b) that they breached their implied and express warranties that their work would be free from faults and defects, and (c) that appellees acted with negligence in performing their contractual obligations in the design and construction of the south wall and in their efforts to rectify the defects.