§ 3.9.12 Conclusion
Regarding express warranties, the contractor will be bound by the clear import of the language used in the construction agreement. If a contractor warrants that all of the materials and equipment furnished will be new, or meet other requirements, under the express warranty law, courts will require the contractor to meet its stated quality standards.
In addition to any express warranties included in the construction agreement, the Registrar of Contractors requires that a contractor must perform its work in an ordinarily skilled manner as a skilled workman. A complaint for failure to satisfy the Registrar of Contractors’ requirements, however, must be filed in most cases within two years of completion of the project.
In addition, contractors impliedly warrant that all construction will be done in a workmanlike manner and that the structure will be habitable. This implied warranty runs to subsequent purchasers of a residence, but under the Statute of Repose, no action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability may be brought more than eight/nine years after substantial completion of the work. Arizona case law suggests that in some cases mass producers of tract homes may be held liable for injuries to third persons under product liability theory. Therefore, contractors who build and sell mass produced tract homes should be aware of the emerging trend of strict liability, and should take appropriate steps to guarantee high quality workmanship.
Further, if a contractor sells goods to another party, the contractor may be liable for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose under the Uniform Commercial Code. An action for breach of either an express or implied warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code must be brought within four years of the date when tender of delivery of the goods is made.
A property owner usually has several potential warranty claims available when faced with construction problems. Contractors need to recognize their potential liability based on well drafted express warranties, implied warranties, Registrar of Contractor’s rules and regulations, and the Uniform Commercial Code. Both the common law and statutory law must be analyzed together in order to determine the best approach to take in the event of a warranty dispute.
Anderson v. Bauer, 681 P.2d 1316 (Wyo. 1984)............................................................................... 3.9-20
Badgett Constr. & Dev. Co. v. Kan-Build, Inc., 102 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (S.D. Iowa 2000)..... 3.9-3
Baker-Crow Constr. Co. v. Hames Electric, Inc., 566 P.2d 153 (Okla. Ct. App. 1976)......... 3.9-3
Blecick v. Sch. Dist. No. 18 of Cochise County, 2 Ariz. App. 115, 406 P.2d 750 (1965) 3.9-5, 20
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 837 So. 2d 1219 (La. 2003)................................................................... 3.9-20
Bouebrake v. Cox, 499 F.2d 951 (8th Cir. 1974).............................................................................. 3.9-23
Buchanan v. Scottsdale Envt'l Constr. & Dev. Co. Inc., 163 Ariz. 285, 787 P.2d 1081 (Ct...
