Putnam v. Roudebush
| Decision Date | 23 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1560,A,No. 17498,17498,76-1560 |
| Citation | 352 So.2d 908 |
| Parties | Joseph F. PUTNAM and Vance D. Bishop, as Trustees under Trustppellants, v. Wilson F. ROUDEBUSH et ux., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Harris of Harris, Harris & Andrews, P. A., St. Petersburg, for appellants.
McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
This action is predicated upon an alleged breach of an implied warranty of fitness and merchantability.
The Roudebushes, as plaintiffs, purchased a condominium apartment from appellants, trustees and developers of the condominium. They complained that the air conditioning system made so much noise in their unit that the unit was rendered uninhabitable. They vacated the premises and brought this action seeking not rescission, but damages for breach of warranty. A judgment for $10,000 was entered in their favor after a jury trial and this appeal ensued. We reverse.
First of all, we recognize that the current state of Florida law extends an implied warranty of fitness and merchantability to the buyer of a new condominium. So where, as here, an air conditioning unit is an integral part of a condominium, it is subject to an implied warranty. 1
Even where an implied warranty exists, it is possible to assert defenses to it. A defense to implied warranty, at least in the products liability area, has been that the party asserting the implied warranty had a reasonable opportunity to discover the defect and did not do so. 2 If we are to extend implied warranties to condominiums, it seems logical to allow the condominium developer/seller the same defenses that we allow the manufacturer/ seller in the products liability field. In the instant case appellants may have been able to utilize this defense had it been properly pled and proven. But, since the defense was not properly pled and proven, there was a proper claim by plaintiffs of implied warranty.
Even so, the Roudebushes' evidence fell far short of establishing a breach of implied warranty. The warranty involved is that the condominium unit was reasonably fit for the ordinary or general purpose intended, viz., as living quarters. A breach thereof, therefore, would be that it is not so fit; and the test of the breach is an objective one, i. e., whether the premises met ordinary, normal standards reasonably to be expected of living quarters of comparable kind and quality. 3 There was no evidence on behalf of the Roudebushes which went to this test. They merely tended to show that, as to their sensitivity to noise, the premises were uninhabitable. 4 No showing was made, nor was there a basis for comparison to establish, that their sensitivity to noise was not hypersensitivity, but was that of reasonable persons a burden resting with them as plaintiffs. The subjective, "personal satisfaction" test is not enough. 5
Additionally, we observe, that even if there is the defect they complain of, it constitutes a continuing nuisance and is a permanent defect in the realty. The usual measure of damages in such a case is the diminution in value of the real estate occasioned by the defect....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conklin v. Hurley
...when an agreed price is paid for a house that it is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is to be used. Putnam v. Roundebush, 352 So.2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Lyon v. Ward, 28 N.C.App. 446, 221 S.E.2d 727 (1976); Cook v. Salishan Properties, Inc., 279 Or. 333, 569 P.2d 1033 (1977); ......
-
Riverfront Lofts Condo. v. Milwaukee/Riverfront, 01-C-0576.
...running water may be annoying, it did not make the building inadequate for use and occupancy as a residence. See Putnam v. Roudebush, 352 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977) (holding that noise from an air conditioner did not make building uninhabitable); Abrams v. Rapoport, 516 N.E.2d 94......
-
Hesson v. Walmsley Const. Co.
...premises meet ordinary, normal standards reasonably to be expected of living quarters of comparable kind and quality. Putnam v. Roudebush, 352 So.2d 908 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). We hold there is an implied warranty of habitability in the package sale of a new house and lot by a builder-vendor to ......
-
Elizabeth N. v. Riverside Group, Inc.
...should govern implied warranty cases, citing Creviston v. General Motors Corporation, 225 So.2d 331 (Fla.1969); Putnam v. Roudebush, 352 So.2d 908 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Smith v. Continental Insurance Company, 326 So.2d 189 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Lauck v. General Telephone Company, 300 So.2d 759 (F......
-
Deconstructing warranties in the construction industry.
...of public policy, to protect purchasers of new houses upon discovery of latent defects in their homes." (41) In Putnam v. Roudebush, 352 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the Second District Court of Appeal illustrated the concept of the implied warranty of habitability as being whether t......