Summary
In Kravitz v. Mudry, 189 A.2d 311 (Pa. Super. 1963), the court held that parol evidence of an oral agreement between a homebuyer and seller that the seller would repair defects in materials and workmanship in a house under construction was not barred by an integrated contract for the sale of that house because the written agreement only "covered the construction of an unfinished house" and the "builder still had the duty of constructing a house according to specifications reasonably free of defects;" a subject not addressed by the contract to sell the unfinished house.
Summary of this case from Alphonse Hotel Corp. v. Nam T. TranOpinion
December 13, 1962.
March 19, 1963.
Evidence — Parol evidence rule — Written agreement of sale of real property — House to be constructed — Waiver of buyer's right to refuse to make settlement — Parol agreement by seller to make necessary repairs after settlement.
In this case, in which it appeared that the parties entered into a written agreement by which plaintiffs agreed to purchase a house under construction by defendant; that certain defects in materials and workmanship were not remedied and plaintiffs refused to take title or make settlement; that defendant orally agreed to remedy the defects, and plaintiffs made settlement in reliance upon this oral agreement of defendant, but because of the failure of defendant to subsequently remedy the defects the plaintiffs sustained certain damage; and that the court below, holding that, in the circumstances, the waiver of plaintiffs' right to refuse to make settlement, upon defendant's failure to properly construct the house, furnished a valid consideration for defendant's agreement to make the necessary repairs after settlement, and thus plaintiffs' cause of action was based on an entirely separate agreement, distinct from the agreement of sale, supported by consideration, and that evidence to establish this agreement was admissible, found for plaintiffs; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 360, Oct. T., 1962, from judgment of County Court of Philadelphia, June T., 1958, No. 1646, in case of Herman Kravitz et al. v. Joseph A. Mudry. Judgment affirmed.
Same case in court below: 29 Pa. D. C. 2d 273.
Assumpsit upon case stated. Before BURCH, J.
Adjudication filed finding for plaintiff; exceptions to adjudication dismissed and final judgment entered. Defendant appealed.
Samuel E. Kratzok, for appellant.
Frank Carano, and Carano Kunken, for appellees.
Submitted December 13, 1962.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge BURCH of the County Court of Philadelphia, as reported in 29 Pa. D. C. 2d 273.