Supreme Court Promotes Responsibility

So you moved into your new home and it was your pride and joy - for a few days. Then you noticed that the cabinet doors weren't always flush, the plumbing started talking to you, the floorboards creaked - and suddenly the dream was a nightmare. Fortunately in these cases of this type, unlucky home-owners can now benefit from a change in the U.S. law.

Once upon a time it was easy to sue a builder who was at fault; you waved the contract around in court and things happened. In the case of a contract between you - the buyer - and the builder, it is not difficult to make a case against the construction company.

But what can you do when the house that you buy is just not up to the standard that we all expect from brand new construction - and your contract is not with the builder? This becomes difficult as the contract signed by the home owner is with the middle man and not the builder.

Many new home owners have bought their home through a middle man, using a development company that has hired a construction company or a sales office etc.

This is also the case with strata complexes and condo owners - although there can be two different scenarios here. Either the owners have signed up with the management and not the construction company, or the owners have actually bought from the construction company.

In the latter case, some matters (i.e. the overall roof) would come under the jurisdiction of the Home Owners Association (who does not have a business contract, per se, with the builders).

In cases like this, the whole question of responsibility for workmanship could be sidestepped, but the Supreme Court has recently stepped in to rule over these types of situation.

A case had already gone to the Court of Appeals who had found that an Association (as opposed to an owner) had no legal precedent to sue a builder without a direct business relationship and this case raised many questions.

In August 2008 the case came before the Supreme Court of Arizona and the Court of Appeals decision was overturned by the Supreme Court who voted unanimously against it.

Now, even if you do not have a legal contract with the Contractor who built your home, it is still possible to have the construction company be held responsible for its workmanship.

The Supreme Court justified their ruling by saying that the marketplace was changing and in many cases a 'construction entity' builds the homes but a 'sales entity' markets them to the public. Even if it transpires that the builder and the vendor do not have a business relationship, the home buyer should still; have the right to enforce the implied warranty against the builder.

Now the U.S. Justice Department says that the cost of 'remedying defective construction must appropriately fall on the builder rather than on innocent end users'.

This is good news for the general public who may have purchased a home in good faith and when things went wrong they found that they had no recourse. In the lofty and powerful realms of the Supreme Court of Arizona, the little man was heard.