Jones v. Gatewood
| Decision Date | 16 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 40007,40007 |
| Citation | 381 P.2d 158 |
| Parties | Robert C. JONES, Plaintiff in Error, v. Lester B. GATEWOOD and Medrith N. Gatewood, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The seller of a house which is being constructed and which, at the time of sale, is not ready for occupancy as a finished house, impliedly warrants that when the house is completed it will be completed in a workmanlike manner and reasonably fit for occupancy as a place of abode, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.
Appeal from District Court of Oklahoma County; Fred Daugherty, Judge.
Action by purchasers against seller of house for damages as a result of faulty construction. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Wheeler, Parsons & Wheeler, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Cantrell, Douglass, Thompson & Wilson, by Lee B. Thompson, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
In January, 1958, Lester B. Gatewood and Medrith N. Gatewood, husband and wife, hereafter called plaintiffs, began negotiations with Robert C. Jones, hereafter called defendant, for the purchase of a lot and a house being built thereon in Oklahoma City. On February 3, 1958, plaintiffs and defendant entered into a written contract, which contained no express warranties, for plaintiffs to purchase the property. Thereafter, in March, 1958, the construction was completed and plaintiffs took possession.
After plaintiffs had been in possession for a few months, they noticed water damage to the floor coverings of the house. There were some other small items of damage which were not seriously disputed.
Plaintiffs brought an action for damages against defendant on the theory of breach of two implied warranties, one the warranty of fitness and the other the warranty that the house was constructed in a good and workmanlike manner. Jury was waived and the matter was tried by the court. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs in the sum of $2,889.43. Defendant's motion for new trial was overruled and he appeals.
Plaintiffs called an architect as an expert witness on the cause of damage to the floors of the house and on how it could be corrected. The house was built on a concrete slab floor. The witness stated that such a house should have under it a water proof membrane to prevent water from being drawn by capillary attraction to the underside of the concrete and then through the slab. He stated that if a membrane was provided, it had been punctured and was therefore no better than if one had never been provided. He recommenced reducing the water pressure under the slab by installing sub-surface drainage around the perimeter of the house.
Defendant in his brief states that the house was completed at the time of sale in February, 1958, except for installing certain accessories. The record does not bear this out. One of plaintiffs testified that the concrete floor was in and the walls were up and the roof on, but that the house was only 75 to 80% complete. He testified that the waterproofing had not yet been placed on the concrete. The defendant in his testimony disputed this, but he admitted that the house 'was not quite completed' when it was sold. We believe there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the house was in the course of construction, that the faulty workmanship and defects were latent and undiscoverable by reasonable inspection, and that upon completion the house was not reasonably fit for occupancy.
As defendant states in his brief, there was only one real issue raised in the trial below and upon appeal here. That issue is whether there was an implied warranty, under the purchase contract in this case, that the defendant would construct the house in a good and workmanlike manner and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. Stiles, Inc. v. Evans
...82 Misc.2d 537, 370 N.Y.S.2d 832, 834-35 (1975) (recognizes warranty of good and workmanlike construction); Oklahoma, Jones v. Gatewood, 381 P.2d 158, 159 (Okla.1963) (uses Humber -like language); Elden v. Simmons, 631 P.2d 739 (refers to "warranties" of habitability and workmanlike constru......
-
Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc.
...it. See Carpenter v. Donohoe, 388 P.2d 399 (Colo.Sup.Ct.1964); Glisan v. Smolenske, 387 P.2d 260 (Colo.Sup.Ct.1963); Jones v. Gatewood, 381 P.2d 158 (Okl.Sup.Ct.1933); Weck v. A:M Sunrise Construction Co., 36 Ill.App.2d 383, 184 N.E.2d 728 (1962). See also Hoye v. Century Builders, Inc., 52......
-
Bethlahmy v. Bechtel
...the warranty survived passing of title by deed. But see Coutrakon v. Adams, 39 Ill.App.2d 290, 188 N.E.2d 780 (1963). In Jones v. Gatewood (Okl.) 381 P.2d 158 (1960), the court held that the vendor of a house under construction impliedly warrants that it will be completed in a workmanlike m......
-
Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf
...v. Levitt & Sons, Inc. (1965), 44 N.J. 70, 207 A.2d 314; Hartley v. Ballou (1974), 20 N.C.App. 493, 201 S.E.2d 712; Jones v. Gatewood (Okl.1963), 381 P.2d 158; Yepsen v. Burgess (1974), 269 Or. 635, 525 P.2d 1019; Elderkin v. Gaster (1972), 447 Pa. 118, 288 A.2d 771; Padula v. J.J. Deb-Cin ......