Hershey v. Rich Rosen Construction Co.
Arizona Court of Appeals
817 P.2d 55 (1991)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Rich Rosen Construction Company (Rosen) (defendant) built a home and sold it in 1976. In 1986, James Hershey (plaintiff) was the third buyer to purchase the home. Before the purchase, Hershey performed his own inspection and did not find any unusual defects in the exterior stucco. About a year later, Hershey observed that the stucco was bulging, an issue that continued to worsen. Hershey hired building expert C. Randall Rushing to inspect the stucco. Rushing concluded that the stucco application was very poor and violated building codes. Thereafter, Hershey asked Rosen to repair the stucco, but Rosen refused. Hershey filed suit against Rosen, claiming breach of implied warranty. Rosen contended that Hershey’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and by Hershey’s failure to make a reasonable inspection of the home before buying. Hershey and Rosen each filed a motion for summary judgment. At the hearing, Rushing testified that if the stucco had been properly applied, the stucco would have been reasonably expected to last from 30 to 50 years. The trial court went on to conclude that (1) the statute of limitations did not bar Hershey’s claim, (2) Hershey had performed a reasonable inspection of the home, and (3) Rosen had breached the implied warranty. The trial court entered judgment in Hershey’s favor. Rosen appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jacobson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.