Cited by

A. Common Law Implied Warranty Claims ¶13 The implied warranty of workmanship and habitability “is an imputed term of the original purchase agreement,” Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, ¶ 15 (2022), applies to contracts between builder-vendors and homebuyers, and is limited to latent defects, Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc.

v. Wunderlich, ¶ 8 (2017) (quoting Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., ).

1 This result is entirely consistent with Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., which explained that the implied warranty passes from a home’s original purchaser to later owners of homes.

See Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc.

(holding subsequent buyer may enforce implied warranty given by a builder/seller); Lofts at Fillmore Condo.

The Warranty “is imposed by law” and serves “to protect innocent purchasers and hold builders accountable for their work.” Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., -45 (1984) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

at 62 ¶ 48, 290 P.3d at 455; see also Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., (providing that because the subsequent homebuyers did not have a contract with the builder, the implied warranty was “imposed by law”).

See Yanni, 233 Ariz. at 367 ¶¶ 8-9, 312 P.3d at 1133 (citing Lofts, 218 Ariz. at 576-77 ¶¶ 7, 14, 190 P.3d at 735-36) and Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., -45, -30 (1984)); cf. N. Peak Const. LLC v. Architecture Plus, Ltd., ¶ 17, (finding no privity of contract required to bring a breach of implied warranty claim against a design professional).

Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc.

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., -78 ¶¶ 15-19, - 37 (2008); see also Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., (noting that “privity is not required to maintain an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability”).

223 Ariz. at 325-26, ¶ 27, 223 P.3d at 669-70 (emphasis added) (citing Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., , ).

However, in Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., , our supreme court recognized an exception to the privity requirement, allowing subsequent purchasers of a house to bring a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against the builder.

See Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., 3 ¶ 28 Given these considerations, we conclude that in construction defect cases, “the policies of the law generally will be best served by leaving the parties to their commercial remedies” when a contracting part

That court distinguished Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., which held “that privity is not required to maintain an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability,” , , 429 (1984), because in Richards the builder was also the vendor of the property.

¶ 1 We address whether the exception to the privity requirement for a claim of breach of the implied warranty of habitability and workmanlike construction, set forth in Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., , is limited to “home *501 builrler-vendors” and, if so, whether the exception should be expanded to non-vendor homebuilders on public policy grounds.

In Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., -45 , -30 (1984), the supreme court established one exception to the privity requirement, holding that the implied warranty of good workmanship and habitability owed by a homebuildervendor to its purchaser can be enforced by a subsequent purchaser who was not in privity of contract with the homebu

¶ 18 Chaurasia also mistakenly relies upon Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc.

¶ 9 The Arizona Supreme Court created one such exception in Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc.

¶26 Both sides argue that our supreme court in Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., , provided useful guidance for resolving this issue, even though the Richards opinion preceded the enactment of § 12-552.

Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., , vacated in part

Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., , approved in part, vacated in part

452 (1983), vacated in part on other grounds

and were extended to subsequent *114 purchasers by our supreme court in Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc.

Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., , Rusch v. Lincoln-Devore Testing Laboratory, Inc.