Can I Sue for Negligent Plumbing Repair Services After the Warranty is Expired?
Full Question:
Answer:
The answer will depend on the terms of the warranty and what it covers as well as excludes. Generally, if defects in workmanship are covere for one year and the contract was knowingly and freely entered into, claims for negligent workmanship after one year will be barred. For further discussion, please see:
http://www.consumerclassactionsmasstorts.com/tags/implied-warranty/
A breach of warranty involves a broken promise about a product made by either a manufacturer or a seller. The term also covers a failure of a statement or agreement by a seller of property which is a part of the contract of sale, when the truth of the statement is necessary to the validity of the contract. Warranties are also express or implied. An express warranty is a particular stipulation introduced into the written contract, by the agreement of the parties; an implied warranty is a guarantee imposed by law in a sale. Even though the seller may not make any explicit promises, the buyer still gets some protection.
Warranties may be either express or implied. Express warranties are created by affirmative acts of the seller that are an affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain. Express warranties can be created when the seller describes the goods or furnishes samples. Express warranties create strict liability for the seller, so that negligence need not be proven. In general, express warranties are based on factual statements rather than opinions about the future. An exception is made when it is a professional opinion which can create a warranty. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which has been adopted in some form by almost all states, liability for breach of warranty is based on seller status. Manufacturer, distributor, and retailer could all be jointly and severally liable, so that the full amount of damages could be collected from one or any of them. The distributor and retailer may be able to escape liability if the manufacturer is not bankrupt. Purchasers, consumers, users, and even bystanders are entitled to sue in most states for breach of warranty.
Warranties are governed by contract laws principles. Any claim you may have relating to the generator will likely be governed by contract law. The answer will depend on the type and terms of the warranties involved. Whether the fault was due to a defect in the part or in the installation will also be a factor. The terms of your contract and warranty language with the seller and the manufacturer will generally determine your rights and obligations as well as those of the seller and manufacturer. You should carefully review the terms of the agreements, to determine your rights and obligations. If you wish to use the legal system to resolve your dispute, you may want to review the following general information regarding contract law and breach of contract actions:
Contracts are agreements that are legally enforceable. A contract is an agreement between two parties that creates an obligation to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. The purpose of a contract is to establish the terms of the agreement by which the parties have fixed their rights and duties. An oral contract is an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially written. An oral contract may generally be enforced the same as a written agreement. However, it is much more difficult with an oral contract to prove its existence or the terms. Oral contracts also usually have a shorter time period within which a person seeking to enforce their contract right must sue. A written contract generally provides a longer time to sue than for breach of an oral contract. Contracts are mainly governed by state statutory and common (judge-made) law and private law. Private law generally refers to the terms of the agreement between the parties, as parties have freedom to override many state law requirements regarding formalities of contracts. Each state has developed its own common law of contracts, which consists of a body of jurisprudence developed over time by trial and appellate courts on a case-by-case basis.
An unjustifiable failure to perform all or some part of a contractual duty is a breach of contract. A legal action for breach of contract arises when at least one party's performance does not live up to the terms of the contract and causes the other party to suffer economic damage or other types of measurable injury. A lawsuit for breach of contract is a civil action and the remedies awarded are designed to place the injured party in the position they would be in if not for the breach. Remedies for contractual breaches are not designed to punish the breaching party. The five basic remedies for breach of contract include the following: money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance. A money damage award includes a sum of money that is given as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the net gain that would have accrued but for the breach. The type of breach governs the extent of damages that may be recovered.
Restitution is a remedy designed to restore the injured party to the position occupied prior to the formation of the contract. Parties seeking restitution may not request to be compensated for lost profits or other earnings caused by a breach. Instead, restitution aims at returning to the plaintiff any money or property given to the defendant under the contract. Plaintiffs typically seek restitution when contracts they have entered are voided by courts due to a defendant's incompetence or incapacity.
Rescission is the name for the remedy that terminates the contractual duties of both parties, while reformation is the name for the remedy that allows courts to change the substance of a contract to correct inequities that were suffered. In order to have a rescission, both parties to the contract must be placed in the position they occupied before the contract was made. Courts have held that a party may rescind a contract for fraud, incapacity, duress, undue influence, material breach in performance of a promise, or mistake, among other grounds.
Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels one party to perform, as nearly as practicable, his or her duties specified by the contract. Specific performance is available only when money damages are inadequate to compensate the plaintiff for the breach
Promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. Promissory estoppel arises from a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forebearance in binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Detrimental reliance is a term commonly used to force another to perform their obligations under a contract, using the theory of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel may apply when a promise was made; reliance on the promise was reasonable or foreseeable; there was actual and reasonable reliance on the promise; the reliance was detrimental; and injustice can only be prevented by enforcing the promise. Detrimental reliance must be shown to involve reliance that is reasonable, which is a determination made on an individual case-by-case basis, taking all factors into consideration. Detrimental means that some type of harm is suffered.
Reasonable reliance is usually referred to as a theory of recovery in contract law. It was what a prudent person might believe and act upon based on something told by another. Sometimes a person acts in reliance on the promise of a profit or other benefit, only to learn that the statements or promises were either incorrect or were exaggerated. The one who acted to their detriment in reasonable reliance may recover damages for the costs of his/her actions or demand performance. Reasonable reliance connotes the use of the standard of an ordinary and average person.
