## Facts

- Homeowners hired a masonry contractor to construct a rear patio for $5,000; the work was completed around 1974.
- The home was sold in 1975 to subsequent purchasers under an agreement disclaiming representations about the character or quality of the buildings and making the sale contingent on a satisfactory engineering inspection.
- In 1978, the purchasers observed patio failures: separation from the house, rising slate slabs, and a buckling exterior wall.
- The purchasers’ expert attributed the damage to improper construction, including inadequate compaction of fill on a sloped lot and insufficient drainage through the wall, and estimated $16,000 to demolish and rebuild.
- The contractor disputed defective workmanship and attributed the damage to lack of homeowner maintenance.
- The purchasers sued the contractor asserting negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranties.

## Issues

1. Whether subsequent purchasers, lacking contractual privity with the contractor, may recover on an express warranty theory based on the original construction contract.
2. Whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to an independent contractor’s construction of a patio and supports a claim by subsequent purchasers for economic loss.
3. Whether an implied warranty of good workmanship/workmanlike performance applies to the patio and is enforceable by subsequent purchasers as an assignable right that passes with conveyance of the property.
4. Whether a negligence action for purely economic loss is available to subsequent purchasers against a contractor for defective construction of an appurtenant improvement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment for the contractor on the express warranty claim because the purchasers did not prove breach of any specific express term and could not independently enforce contract terms absent privity.
- The court rejected application of the implied warranty of habitability because a patio is not an essential element of habitability and the defects did not render the dwelling unfit for human habitation.
- The court held that an implied warranty of good workmanship applies to the contractor’s construction work and may be enforced by subsequent purchasers despite lack of privity because the right is assignable and is presumed to pass with the sale of the property absent contrary intent.
- The court remanded for factfinding on breach and damages under the implied workmanship warranty.
- The court did not decide the separate negligence/economic-loss question, reasoning that negligent construction would be addressed through the implied warranty claim on the presented facts.

## Legal Principles

- Construction contracts carry an implied warranty that the contractor will perform in a reasonably workmanlike manner consistent with accepted standards and that the improvement will be reasonably fit for its intended use.
- The implied warranty of habitability is confined to defects affecting essential “vital living elements” of a dwelling; it does not extend to nonessential appurtenances that do not impair habitability.
- Contract-based warranty rights, including the right to sue for breach of an implied warranty of good workmanship, are generally assignable unless prohibited; absent contrary intent, the benefit of such claims is presumed to pass with conveyance of the property to subsequent purchasers.
- Where an implied workmanship warranty provides a sufficient remedial framework for defective construction causing economic loss, a court may decline to resolve broader negligence/economic-loss doctrines in the same case.

## Conclusion

The court allowed subsequent purchasers to pursue the contractor for defective patio construction under an implied warranty of good workmanship that is assignable and presumed to transfer with the property, while limiting recovery by rejecting both express-warranty enforcement without privity and habitability-warranty coverage for a nonessential patio.


Aronsohn v. Mandara, 484 A.2d 675 (N.J. 1984)