§5.3 OWNER'S IMPLIED WARRANTY OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
One who furnishes plans and specifications for a project impliedly warrants that the plans and specifications are workable and sufficient. United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 136, 39 S. Ct. 59, 63 L. Ed. 166 (1918). Application of this implied warranty of adequate design to owners is discussed below.
(1) Implication
If the contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans or specifications. Id. This doctrine, referred to as the Spearin doctrine, has been adopted in Washington and most other states. See Dravo Corp. v. Municipality of Metro. Seattle, 79 Wn.2d 214, 218, 484 P.2d 399 (1971); Weston v. New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church, 23 Wn.App. 747, 753, 598 P.2d 411 (1978); City of Seattle v. Dyad Constr, 17 Wn.App. 501, 565 P.2d 423 (1977).
(2) Spearin doctrine
The origin of the implied warranty of design adequacy was the landmark Spearin decision, 248 U.S. 132, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1918.
See §12.3 of Chapter 12 (Performance Issues) of this deskbook for another discussion of the Spearin doctrine.
(a) Origin
Spearin involved construction of a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard by Mr. Spearin. A portion of the project involved relocating a six-foot sewer line that intersected where the dry dock would be located. The plans provided by the government specified the dimensions, materials
[Page 5-6]
and location of the sewer line to be relocated. Spearin constructed the relocated sewer line in accordance with the owner's plans. During construction of the dry dock, the six-foot sewer line failed due to added pressure caused by an obstruction, not caused or known by Spearin, in a different sewer line that was connected to the six-foot line. This failure flooded the dry dock and Spearin stopped work. The government argued that Spearin was responsible for the cost to repair and was required to continue work. The Court disagreed, holding that "[i]f the contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications." Id. at 136.
(b) Recovering compensation
Although the Spearin case did not involve a situation wherein the contractor had performed the extra work resulting from the defective...
