Question

Harold and Maude entered into negotiations with Sam to purchase Sam’s home. The home was not new, and Harold and Maude had some concerns that the roof might leak. Sam verbally assured them that the roof did not leak. The written contract entered into between Sam and Harold and Maude, however, did not contain any written warranties concerning the roof. The contract also contained a provision that stated that no agreements, representations, or warranties, unless expressly incorporated or set forth in the contract, would be binding on any of the parties. After Harold and Maude purchased the home, they discovered that the roof leaked every time it rained. Harold and Maude have come to the law firm where you are a paralegal and have asked for advice concerning their rights to sue Sam for his misrepresentation concerning the condition of the roof. You have been asked to research the issue and to report to your supervising attorney your conclusions concerning Harold and Maude’s rights against Sam for the roof leak. What would be your conclusion?

Answer 1

Rules

• Any warranty or statements from the seller or the buyer based on which the other entered into the contract must affirmative expressed in the written contract
• Parties can have an additional instrument to reaffirm the warranty. Contract have clauses for situations where the warranty proves untrue, stating the rights and obligations of each party
• Parol evidence rule – the rule of evidence that states the written agreement is the best and only evidence between the parties. The rule goes further to say that parties cannot bring oral testimony regarding other agreements related to the transaction
• Seller’s Disclaimer of Warranty – seller can state a clause in the contract that shows there is no other written or oral agreements in the transaction

In this case,

• Written warranty regarding the roof has not been affirmatively stated in the written contract
• There is no additional agreement regarding such warranty
• Parol evidence rule - an Oral agreement between Harold/Maude and Sam cannot bring into account
• Sam has enclosed a.’ Seller’s Disclaimer of Warranty,’. The contract contains a provision that state,’ no agreements, representations, or warranties unless expressly incorporated or set forth in the contract, would be binding on any of the parties.’

Though Sam had promised verbally there is no roof leak, this cannot be taken into account since there is no written agreement. Hence the case should be ruled in favor