Kandalis v. Paul Pet Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1956
• Docket Number: No. 194,194
• Citation: 210 Md. 319,123 A.2d 345
• Parties: Robert KANDALIS and Marian Kandalis, his wife, v. PAUL PET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 319

210 Md. 319

123 A.2d 345

Robert KANDALIS and Marian Kandalis, his wife, v. PAUL PET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc.

No. 194.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 15, 1956.

John T. Enoch, Baltimore (Goodman, Meagher & Enoch and Philip H. Goodman, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Alleck A. Resnick, Baltimore (Jacob Kartman, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.

DELAPLAINE, Judge.

Robert Kandalis and Marian Kandalis, his wife, purchasers of real eatate in Baltimore County, instituted this suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to recover damages from Paul pet Construction Company, Inc., the seller, for alleged breach of contract.

The declaration filed on March 8, 1955, alleges substantially as follows:

(1) By a contract executed on August 24, 1953, defendant agreed to sell to plaintiffs a parcel of land, together with a dwelling to be erected thereon 'similar in nature to a sample house,' for the sum of $19,173. The contract provided that the dwelling was to be built at 7610 Carla Road 'in substantial compliance with D Home,' with certain additions and exceptions. The additions included a rear inside wall of utility room and kitchen extended four feet, extended patio roof and storage wall, and a 1,000-gallon septic tank. No specifications, however, were attached to the contract.

(2) Plaintiffs made settlement for the property on March 15, 1954, when defendant guaranteed that the premises were completed according to the contract. Plaintiffs paid the entire balance due for the property in reliance upon defendant's assurances.

(3) The following work provided for in the contract was not done, completed, or performed in a workmanlike manner: (a) The aquastat in the house is defective and not in proper working condition; (b) the heating system does not give sufficient radiation by way of baseboard heating; (c) there is insufficient rockwool insulation between the rafters, in the air space between the cinder-block wall and the inside of the dry wall, and above the closets and behind the kitchen cabinets; (d) the thermostat is defective; and (e) the escape valve on the septic tank adjacent to the house is in a defective condition.

(4) Plaintiffs made numerous demands upon defendant to correct the defective work, but defendant failed and refused to do so. Plaintiffs made final written demand upon defendant on January 26, 1955.

Defendant demurred to the declaration on the ground that any assurances it may have given to plaintiffs were merged in the deed. The Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs appealed here from that judgment.

We have often stated the general rule that the acceptance of a deed of real estate gives rise to a prima facie presumption that it is an execution of the entire contract of sale, and the rights of the parties in relation to the contract are determined by the deed. But acceptance of a deed does not effect a merger or collateral agreements where it appears that the deed is only a partial execution of the contract. Rosenthal v. Heft, 155 Md. 410, 418, 142 A. 598; Levin v. Cook, 186 Md. 535, 539, 47 A.2d 505. Parol evidence may be given as to collateral facts relating to the sale of real estate if such evidence is consistent with the deed and does not tend to contradict it.

Where a contract for the sale of a parcel of land calls for the construction of a house thereon in accordance with plans and specifications, the mere fact that the purchasers take possession when the building is completed does not necessarily constitute a waiver of defects or an acceptance of the contractor's workmanship. The law will not raise a presumption that the right of the purchasers to damages for defects in the work of construction has been discharged by their acceptance of the property unless there has elapsed an unreasonable length of time without any complaint by the purchasers. However, where defects in the work of construction of a building are known or readily discoverable by the purchasers of the property, and no complaint about the quality of the work is promptly made by them, their acceptance of the property discharges any right to damages which they might have had for the defects. Stevens v. Milestone, 190 Md. 61, 57 A.2d 292; Edison Realty Realty Co. v. Bauernschub, 191 Md. 451, 458, 62 A.2d 354; Laurel Realty Co. v. Himelfarb, 191 Md. 462, 471, 62 A.2d...