Court Opinion

ID: 9846683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:45:26.071277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:43.428320
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the result. Plaintiff sued defendant in the magistrate court for “BREACH OF CONTRACT (faulty fireplace — plaintiff bought home with the idea that the fireplace was in working condition).” Defendant denied there was a breach of contract. On December 29, 1973, plaintiff purchased a home from defendant under a printed real estate contract. Paragraph 2 provides: Purchaser(s) declare that they are buying said property upon their own examination and judgment and not by reason of any representation made to Purchaser(s) by the Seller(s), or agent for Seller(s), as to its condition, size, location, value, future value, income therefrom or as to its production. Purchaser(s) further accept property in “as is” condition including, but not limited to, roof, plumbing, electrical and all mechanical equipment. [Emphasis added] In the magistrate court, it appears that defendant, represented by attorneys, filed a memorandum brief on the “as is” provision of the contract. Plaintiff recovered judgment and costs in the sum of $1,264.00. Defendant appealed to the district court. In the district court, plaintiff was represented by attorneys. A. Defendant made no representations. The fireplace was defective and caused ■damage to plaintiff’s home. However, the trial court found that defendant did not make any representations regarding the fireplace. There was substantial evidence to support this finding. Furthermore, the “as is” provision of the contract waived any prior representation as well as any reliance thereon. Montague v. Bank for Savings in City of New York, 181 Misc. 863, 43 N.Y.S.2d 321 (1943); Redner v. City of New York, 53 Misc.2d 148, 278 N.Y.S.2d 51 (1967). In Montague, the judge said: If the plaintiff’s construction is to receive judicial recognition no vendor can ever protect himself against a false and fraudulent claim respecting a purported prior representation concerning the condition of the premises which are the subject of the sale and one can readily visualize the opening of a fertile field for the perpetration of fraud. [43 N.Y.S.2d at 326], This concept of justice throws out of consideration any purported prior representation of defendant concerning the condition of the home purchased by plaintiff. State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 628, 107 P.2d 324, 327 (1940) quoted the following: “Isaac was blind, and there is an old adage that justice is blind. But justice is only blind in so far as it does not make any distinction between litigants, be they of high or low degree, rich or poor, Jew or Gentile. Justice cannot distinguish one from the other. However, in detecting fraud and deception justice should have the vision to discover them in their true nature no matter how well the design to deceive.” I agree. Courts would be blind indeed if they could not see an attempt by a purchaser of real estate to seek by deception, relief from an “as is” provision based on prior representations of defendant concerning the condition of the property. B. The “as is” provision did not bar plaintiff’s claim for relief. Plaintiff is a blind young man who was a student at the University of New Mexico. Alice Enyart was the real estate saleslady acting on behalf of the broker with whom defendant listed the property for sale. On cross-examination, plaintiff testified that Alice read the contract to him in its entirety. This included paragraph 2 which contains the “as is” provision. Q. You, therefore, understood that you were buying the property as is? A. No, not as is, well as is per se. Defendant did not ask plaintiff what he meant by his answer. To me, it means that plaintiff did not understand that he was buying the property “as is,” as those words are commonly understood when taken alone. Neither did defendant produce Alice to controvert the testimony of plaintiff. The court found: 18. That pursuant to paragraph 2 of the purchase agreement, Plaintiff represented that he examined said premises and purchased same “as is” and not because of any representations by the sellers or agents. Plaintiff did represent that he examined the premises, but the examination of the fireplace by a blind person who had no knowledge of the hidden defects was a useless gesture. Plaintiff did not purchase the property because of any representations by defendant or Alice. But, in my opinion, he did not purchase the property “as is,” as those words are defined in cases which involve real property. “Common-sense justice is, of course, the most desirable objective inherent in the application of any legal concept; and where the application of a legal concept so clearly results in injustice, it is incumbent upon the courts to examine the concept and its applicability most carefully.” DeNike v. Mowery, 69 Wash.2d 357, 366, 418 P.2d 1010, 1017 (1966). The “as is” provision in a real estate contract, involving the purchase of a home, seems to be a matter of first impression in the United States. Lingsch v. Savage, 213 Cal.App.2d 729, 29 Cal.Rptr. 201, 8 A.L.R.3d 537 (1963) involved an action against a real estate broker. In the course of its opinion, the court discussed an “as is” provision in a real estate contract. The court said: We are of the opinion that, generally speaking, such a provision means that the buyer takes the property in the condition visible to or observable by him. [Emphasis added] [29 Cal.Rptr. at 209]. Under this interpretation, as applicable to the purchase of a home, the “as is” provision in the real estate contract did not affect plaintiff’s claim for damages for a defective fireplace. Redner, supra, says: The purpose of the “as is” clause is to negate the existence any representations by the seller as to the particular condition, fitness and type of construction of the premises sold. It merely means that the purchaser must take that for which he bargained, reasonable use, wear, tear and natural deterioration excepted. (Montague v. Bank for Sav., 181 Misc. 863, 43 N.Y.S.2d 321.) [278 N.Y.S.2d at 54], Under this interpretation, plaintiff is protected. Montague, supra, involved an action to rescind a contract for the purchase and sale of a building because it was not fireproof. The contract provided that the plaintiff purchased the building, “ ‘as is’ and would accept it in its present condition”. The judge who wrote the opinion stated that there was no basis for recision because the “as is” provision “waived, if it did not entirely destroy, any prior representation as to the condition of the building, and, as well, any prior reliance thereon.” [43 N.Y.S.2d at 325]. But the judge found that the plaintiff read and understood the terms of the contract, voiced no objection to the “as is” provision, and knew that the building was not fireproof. The California and New York interpretation of the “as is” provision in a real estate contract is fair under principles of justice that prevail in business transactions. One who sells real estate should not profit by insertion of an “as is” clause to protect himself from hidden defects that cause damage to the purchaser. “A very wise judge and preceptor gave this advice: ‘If you are in doubt, take a short cut to justice.’ ” Russell v. Thielen, 82 So.2d 143, 146 (Fla.1955). I shall follow this advice. Plaintiff, a blind young man, listened to a woman read a long, involved real estate contract. There was no discussion as to its contents. A fireplace was not mentioned nor discussed. It was not observable to him. He could not determine whether it was defective without expert advice. He did not clearly understand the meaning of the “as is” provision. The purpose of the provision is to protect the defendant “against a false and fraudulent claim respecting a purported prior representation concerning the condition of the premises . . . .” [43 N.Y.S.2d at 326], Plaintiff does not seek to perpetrate a fraud on defendant. He accepted the property in an “as is” condition, reasonable use, wear, tear and natural deterioration excepted. The “as is” provision of the real estate contract did not bar plaintiff’s claim for relief.