Vanderschrier v. Aaron
| Decision Date | 07 March 1957 |
| Citation | 103 Ohio App. 340,140 N.E.2d 819 |
| Parties | , 3 O.O.2d 367 Jacobus VANDERSCHRIER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kenmore AARON and Abe Holick, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
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.
Bernard Friedman, Cleveland, for defendants-appellants.
Ford, Clarke, Rowland & Wegman, Cleveland, for plaintiffs-appellees.
In the year 1954, Jacobus and Jannette Vanderschrier, husband and wife, contracted for the purchase of a single-family dwelling house in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, and soon thereafter they occupied it as a home.
In a petition filed by them in the Municipal Court of South Euclid, Ohio, in which they sought compensation for damages from the sellers (who were also the builders), Kenmore Aaron and Abe Holick, partners, they claimed that the house had not been constructed in a workmanlike manner, in that the sewer line leading from the house to the main sewer of the city of Cleveland, located in the street in front, had not been properly connected; mortar or other suitable binding material, had not been used in the construction thereof; and the sewer had not been tested for the purpose of determining its adequacy and efficiency.
The complaint continued by stating that in fact the sewer failed to carry away the waste material, and, as a result thereof, the basement of the home became flooded with sewage, which damaged furniture and carpeting, and caused the house to be 'unsanitary and unhealthful to live in * * *.'
The cost to them of work and materials in abating the fault and restoring the premises, coupled with the loss through damage to their furniture and carpeting, was made the basis of their claim for compensation.
The case was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury, and at the conclusion of the trial a judgment was entered for the petitioners and against the defendants. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were neither sought by the litigants nor made by the court. We have, therefore, in this appeal by the defendants, only the original papers and judgment in the case, together with a bill of exceptions recording the testimony, exhibits, and proceedings of the trial.
In this opinion we will not go into a discussion of the duty of the seller of a completed house to the buyer, with the evervarying circumstances surrounding such sales. Nor will we discuss the legal questions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. Stiles, Inc. v. Evans
...920, 922 (Ct.App.1984); North Dakota, Carlson Homes, Inc. v. Messmer, 307 N.W.2d 564, 567 (N.D.1981); Ohio, Vanderschrier v. Aaron, 103 Ohio App. 340, 140 N.E.2d 819, 821 (1957), but see Mitchem v. Johnson, 7 Ohio St.2d 66, 218 N.E.2d 594, 598-99 (1966) (perhaps abandoning the implied warra......
-
Conklin v. Hurley
...Implied Warranties in the Sale of New Homes, 23 U.Fla.L.Rev. 626 (1971). 4 § 672.314, Fla.Stat. (1981). 5 See, e.g., Vanderschrier v. Aaron, 103 Ohio App. 340, 140 N.E.2d 819 (1957); Hoye v. Century Builders, Inc., 52 Wash.2d 830, 329 P.2d 474 (1958). These decisions were based in part on a......
-
Homeowners Ass'n v. Pilgrims Landing, Lc
...Id. In the late 1950s, the first American court recognized an implied warranty in the sale of a new home. Vanderschrier v. Aaron, 103 Ohio App. 340, 140 N.E.2d 819, 821 (1957). Other courts followed suit in the 1960s.7 By the 1980s, minority became the majority. See Conklin v. Hurley, 428 S......
-
Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf
...therefore impliedly warranted that it would be suitable for that purpose. (2 K.B. 113.) In 1957 an Ohio court in Vanderschrier v. Aaron (1957), 103 Ohio App. 340, 140 N.E.2d 819, applied the Miller rule for the first time in the United States. In 1964 the Colorado Supreme Court extended the......
-
The Spearin Doctrine and the Economic Loss Rule in Residential Construction - July 2006 - Construction Law
...product will be fit for human dwelling. Colorado and other American courts later adopted this holding. See, e.g., Vanderschrier v. Aaron, 140 N.E.2d 819 (Ohio App. 1957); Glisan v. Smolenske, 387 P.2d 260, 263 (Colo. 1963). In Carpenter, the Colorado Supreme Court expanded this warranty to ......
-
THE SPEARIN DOCTRINE AND THE ECONOMIC LOSS RULE IN RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
...product will be fit for human dwelling. Colorado and other American courts later adopted this holding. See, e.g., Vanderschrier v. Aaron, 140 N.E.2d 819 (Ohio App. 1957); Glisan v. Smolenske, 387 P.2d 260, 263 (Colo. 1963). In Carpenter, the Colorado Supreme Court expanded this warranty to ......
-
Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transaction Act
...State of Caveat Emptor in Alaska as it Applies to Real Property, 13 ALASKA L. REV. 237, 239-240 (1996). [FN27]. Vanderschrier v. Aaron, 140 N.E.2d 819 (Ohio App. 1957). [FN28]. Carpenter v. Donohoe, 388 P.2d 399 (Colo. 1964). [FN29]. REALTOR is a copyrighted word belonging to the National A......