Aronsohn v. Mandara
Supreme Court of New Jersey
484 A.2d 675 (1984)
- Written by Rebecca Green, JD
Facts
In 1974, the Kawashes contracted with Mandara Masonry Corporation (Mandara) (defendant) to build a patio at the Kawashes’ home. The Aronsohns (plaintiffs) later purchased the home from the Kawashes. In 1978, the Aronsohns noticed that the patio was starting to fall apart. The Aronsohns sued, alleging that Mandara’s allegedly improper construction had breached both express and implied warranties of good workmanship. The trial court found for Mandara. The trial court held that the Aronsohns could not have an express warranty claim because there was no privity of contract between the Aronsohns and Mandara. Further, the trial court held that the implied warranty of habitability did not apply to service contracts like the patio-building contract between the Kawashes and Mandara. Therefore, the Aronsohns could not pursue that claim either. The Aronsohns appealed. Although the appellate court disagreed that this patio-building contract was a service contract, it held that there was no express or implied warranty because there was no privity of contract between the Aronsohns and Mandara. The Aronsohns appealed again.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schreiber, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
