<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redd/ie:
In December 98, we closed on a newly constructed home. Recently the builders completed their twelve month warranty check list that we sent in December 99. During a period that we sent the check list in and them comming out to do the work, My wife and I noticed that the roof that hangs over the front pourch is crooked! The builder says that they will not fix it because technicaly the house is over a year old and that all workmanship warranty is void after twelve months. I checked with the 2-10 HBW and they say unless its causing structural damage, nothing can be done. My concern is this, the roof looks like crap! It's a big negative in the eyes of potential buyers, and I shouldn't be the one paying to fix it. I don't care if the house is 2 years passed workmanship warranty, I expected a little more from a real house than a modular! Can someone tell me if I have a chance of winning in court or should I should I forget it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My response:
You said, in essence, that despite the passage of more than 2 years past the warranty period, you feel that you are entitled to a roof repair because "the roof looks like crap!" In other words, you would be basing your legal theory for relief based on a breach of the "warranty of fitness for a particular purpose" implied in every contract; or, perhaps, making a claim of "fraud", in order to overcome the expiration of the written 12 month warranty.
A roof that "looks like crap" does not, in and of itself, qualify for, or trigger, the "implied warranty" provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, and is not fraudulent. If the roof still performs its job; i.e., keeps out inclement and other weather conditions, then it is my belief you would have a severe uphill battle to cause a court to "pierce the written contractual provisions" to compel the contractor to re-install the roof - - especially so if there were different and better grades of roofing material you could have purchased, but didn't.
IAAL
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited May 04, 2000).]
