Gallegos v. Graff, 72--329
| Decision Date | 10 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--329,72--329 |
| Citation | 508 P.2d 798,32 Colo.App. 213 |
| Parties | , 12 UCC Rep.Serv. 617 Jesse M. GALLEGOS and Margaret Gallegos, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Carl GRAFF and Frieda Graff, Defendants-Appellants. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Anthony J. Pasquale, Denver, for defendants-appellants.
This action was brought by Jesse M. and Margaret Gallegos, plaintiffs-appellees, against Carl and Frieda Graff, defendants-appellants, to recover damages for alleged defects in a house. After a trial to the court, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $525 for the replacement of the furnace, $75 for the repair of the roof, and the cost of maintaining the action. We reverse.
The Graffs bought the house new in 1954 and made it their home for 15 years. In July 1969 the Gallegoses purchased the house through a real estate sales agent and immediately moved in. Testimony at the trial revealed that there was some mention by the Graffs to the Gallegoses that the house was in 'good condition,' but nothing of specificity was asked for nor offered by any of the parties. In September of that same year, the Gallegoses attempted to operate the furnace, but they found that it was defective and would have to be replaced. A new furnace was installed. It was also discovered that the roof had a minor leak, and although the Gallegoses obtained an estimate, they did not have the roof repair work done.
The trial court, in its finding of fact, found neither fraud nor misrepresentation present in the transaction. It isolated the real and only issue as one of implied warranty. The court ruled that, regardless of the seller's lack of knowledge at the time of the sale, the seller is liable for damages due to a defective furnace and a leaky roof if such were the conditions at the time of the sale. As basis for the ruling, the trial court relied on the Uniform Commercial Code and the Colorado Jury Instructions.
It should first be noted that the Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to the transfer of interests in real property. C.R.S.1963, 155--2--102, 155--2--105. Although real property may make up all or part of the consideration paid in a transaction, 'the transfer of the interest in realty or the transferor's obligations in connection therewith' are not affected by the code. C.R.S.1963, 155--2--304(2).
Further, in promulgating the Colorado Jury Instructions, it was not the purpose of the Supreme Court to compile a restatement or an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClanahan v. American Gilsonite Co.
...of the various refinery components, severance was not contemplated by the parties to the sale contract. See Gallegos v. Graff, 32 Colo.App. 213, 508 P.2d 798 (1973). IV. Finally, it should be noted that the foregoing analysis with respect to the plaintiffs' substantive claims against Gilson......
-
Wade v. Olinger Life Ins. Co.
...law, they are intended to operate as consistent guides to the proper legal principles involved. See C.R.C.P. 51.1, Construed in Gallegos v. Graff, 32 Colo.App. 213, 508 P.2d 798 (1973). See also Davis v. Cline, 177 Colo. 204, 493 P.2d 362 (1972). In the absence of authority to the contrary,......
-
Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 80SC260
...to first purchasers. See, e.g., H.B. Bolas Enterprises, Inc. v. Zarlengo, 156 Colo. 530, 400 P.2d 447 (1965); Gallegos v. Graff, 32 Colo.App. 213, 508 P.2d 798 (1973). However, the "contractual obligation is not the touchstone of civil liability in tort. It is only the matrix from which an ......
-
Krueger v. Ary
...210, 211 (Colo.App.1983) ("pattern jury instruction is intended as a model and will yield to prevailing law"); Gallegos v. Graff, 32 Colo. App. 213, 215, 508 P.2d 798, 799 (1973). Even where a pattern instruction is promulgated subsequent to the authority expressing the prevailing law, the ......
-
Chapter 4 - § 4.3 • BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES
...et seq.; N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 46:3B-1, et seq.; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 777, et seq.; Va. Code Ann. § 55.1-357.[55] Gallegos v. Graff, 508 P.2d 798, 799 (Colo. App. 1973); C.R.S. §§ 4-2-101, et seq.[56] 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq. (Magnuson-Moss Act).[57] See, e.g., Avner v. Longridge Estates, 7......
-
Chapter 14 - § 14.4 • CONTRACT CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF A HOME
...et seq.; N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 46:3B-1, et seq.; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 777, et seq.; Va. Code Ann. § 55.1-357.[873] Gallegos v. Graff, 508 P.2d 798, 799 (Colo. App. 1973); C.R.S. §§ 4-2-101, et seq.[874] 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq. (Magnuson-Moss Act).[875] See, e.g., Avner v. Longridge Estates......
-
Chapter 14 - § 14.3 • IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
...1965); Sloat v. Matheny, 625 P.2d 1031 (Colo. 1981); Wright v. Creative Corp., 498 P.2d 1179 (Colo. App. 1972). See Gallegos v. Graff, 508 P.2d 798 (Colo. App. 1973) (no implied warranty on subsequent sale). But see Duncan v. Schuster-Graham Homes, Inc., 578 P.2d 637 (Colo. Colo. 1978) (hom......
-
Negligence: the Construction Claim Panacea?
...386, 599 P.2d 269 (1979); Duncan v. Schuster-Graham Homes, Inc., 194 Colo. 441, 578 P.2d 637 (1978); Gallegos v. Graff, 32 Colo.App. 269, 508 P.2d 798, 799 (1973). 4. Johnson-Voiland-Archuleta v. Roark Associates, Colo.App. 269, 572 P.2d 1220 (1977); Samuelson v. Chutich, 187 Colo. 155, 529......