Richman v. Watel
| Decision Date | 06 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 5879,5879 |
| Parties | Victor RICHMAN et ux., Appellants, v. Buddy WATEL, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal by plaintiffs Richman from summary judgment they take nothing in suit for damages for breach of implied warranty of fitness of a new house they purchased from defendant builder-vendor Watel.
Plaintiffs Richman sued defendant Watel, a builder-vendor of new homes, alleging plaintiffs purchased a new home from defendant May 24, 1965; that there existed an implied warranty on defendant's part that the home was constructed in good workmanlike manner and was fit for the ordinary purpose of family residence; that on December 22, 1974 while plaintiffs were using the residence, negligently constructed by defendant, the floor in the front part of the home gave way making it unfit for the purpose of a residence. Plaintiffs sought damages for repairs, and for loss in market value of the house.
Defendant answered that the cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations.
Defendant moved for summary judgment asserting plaintiffs' suit was based on negligent construction of the house and/or breach of warranty of fitness; that a written warranty delivered with the house warranted the house against defects in materials and workmanship for one year from purchase, and provided there were no other warranties on the property; and further that plaintiffs' pleading was filed more than 4 years after purchase; thus being barred by the 4-year Statute of Limitations.
The trial court sustained defendant's motion and rendered summary judgment plaintiffs take nothing.
Plaintiffs appeal contending:
1) The trial court erred in rendering summary judgment.
2) An implied warranty of fitness existed on the house as a matter of law.
3) Plaintiffs' action based on implied warranty of fitness is a tort, therefore defendant's contract defenses do not apply.
4) The trial court erred in rendering summary judgment because a fact issue exists as to the time the Statute of Limitations commenced to run.
On May 24, 1965 plaintiffs purchased a new house from defendant builder-vendor. At such time defendant gave plaintiffs a written warranty which limited defendant's liability against defective conditions to a one-year period, and provided there were no other warranties made.
On December 22, 1974 the floor in the front room collapsed due to faulty construction and improper design. Defendant failed to install air vents causing inadequate subfloor ventilation which caused the beams to rot causing the floor to collapse.
When defendant built and sold the new house to plaintiffs he impliedly warranted the house was constructed in good workmanlike manner and was suitable for human habitation. Humber v. Morton, Tex., 426 S.W.2d 554, 25 A.L.R.3d 372; Diana v. Parks, (Texarkana, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 433 S.W.2d 761; Moore v. Werner, (14 Houston, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 418 S.W.2d 918.
And the express written warranty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. Stiles, Inc. v. Evans
...to "the implied warranties described in Humber...." Id. at 780. We disagree. The court in Watel affirmed Richman v. Watel, 565 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.), in which the appellate court had reversed a summary judgment because disputed facts existed. The supreme co......
-
Riverfront Lofts Condo. v. Milwaukee/Riverfront
...587 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1979); Norair Eng'g Corp. v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 147 Ga.App. 595, 249 S.E.2d 642 (1978); Richman v. Watel, 565 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Civ.App.1978), aff'd, 576 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.1978) (expressly declining to reach the issue)); accord Hennes Erecting Co. v. Nat'l Union Fir......
-
Vaughn Bldg. Corp. v. Austin Co.
...v. Richman, 576 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.1978), in which the supreme court declined to approve the holding in Richman v. Watel, 565 S.W.2d 101, 102 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1978, writ ref'd n. r. e.) that an express warranty for a limited time does not exclude an implied warranty that otherwise would have......
-
Miller v. Dickenson, 2-83-186-CV
...of limitations commences when the buyer discovers or should have discovered the injury. Jim Walters Homes, Inc., supra; Richman v. Watel, 565 S.W.2d 101,102 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 576 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.1978). Both appellees testified that they first began noticing......