## Facts

- Byers Construction Co. of Kansas, Inc. developed and advertised Woodlawn East Addition in Wichita, Kansas, as a desirable residential subdivision.
- Before development, the tract included abandoned oil-field areas used for saltwater disposal, leaving portions of the soil with high saline content.
- Plaintiffs alleged Byers knew or should have known the saline areas would not sustain vegetation and graded/developed the land so purchasers could not reasonably discover the condition.
- Plaintiffs selected homesites in the subdivision; home construction was performed by separate builders, and the builders (not the plaintiffs) purchased the lots from Byers.
- After the homes were built, plaintiffs’ landscaping efforts failed because grass, shrubs, and trees would not grow in the saline soil.
- Plaintiffs sued Byers on alternative theories: (1) breach of an implied warranty of fitness of the lots and (2) fraud by concealment/nondisclosure of a material defect.
- The district court consolidated three related homeowner actions, granted summary judgment to Byers on all claims, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a residential lot developer impliedly warrants that lot soil is fit for landscaping/vegetation, such that infertile saline soil supports a breach of implied warranty of fitness claim.
2. Whether a developer’s nondisclosure of known (or constructively known) latent saline soil can constitute actionable fraud by concealment to ultimate purchasers despite lack of contractual privity.
3. Whether the Parsons plaintiffs’ fraud claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Byers on the implied-warranty claims.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the fraud-by-concealment claims for the remaining timely plaintiffs, holding the allegations and record could support liability for nondisclosure of a known latent defect.
- The court affirmed summary judgment against the Parsons’ fraud claim as time-barred.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving fraud claims.

## Legal Principles

- An implied warranty of fitness in land sales is not established merely because the property fails to meet all buyer expectations; the property’s continued suitability for ordinary residential use weighed against an implied warranty covering soil fertility for landscaping.
- Implied warranty of fitness generally requires the seller’s knowledge of the buyer’s particular purpose and the buyer’s reliance on the seller’s skill or judgment for that specific purpose.
- Fraud by concealment may be actionable where a developer with superior knowledge fails to disclose a latent, material defect not reasonably discoverable by purchasers, especially where the developer’s conduct prevents discovery.
- Privity of contract is not a prerequisite to a fraud claim when the defendant’s concealment is directed at, and foreseeably relied on by, the class of purchasers the development and advertising were intended to attract.
- A fraud claim remains subject to statutory time limits; an otherwise viable concealment theory may be barred if not timely filed.

## Conclusion

The court refused to extend implied warranty doctrine to guarantee soil fertility for ordinary residential landscaping where the lots remained usable for housing, but it permitted timely claims to proceed on a theory that a developer may be liable in tort for concealing a serious, latent soil defect from intended home purchasers.


Griffith v. Byers Constr. Co. of Kan., Inc., 212 Kan. 65, 510 P.2d 198 (Kan. 1973)