Mallin v. Good

417 N.E.2d 858 (1981)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mallin (P) entered into a contract with Good (D) for the purchase of D's single-family dwelling. The purchase price was $165K with the closing to occur by July 1, 1977. The form contract was modified with typewritten language that called for all heating, plumbing, electrical and air conditioning to be in working order at time of closing, with reasonable handwritten above working and or adjustment at closing were appended by hand. Another typewritten provision called for the roof to be inspected and any damages to the roof repaired by seller to the buyer's satisfaction at that time; which was deleted and replaced with ‘in a good and workmanlike manner.’ Problems developed with the deal in that it was discovered that there were a lot of problems with the roof and P had obtained three written estimates but had done no work prior to closing. P was upset and at closing agreed to do the deal but would enforce their rights under the covenants of repair in the contract. P sued D for enforcement of the covenants in the contract and D made a motion for summary judgment; D entered into evidence that P had someone who could fix the roof for $200. Summary judgment was granted to D; all the terms of the contract merged into the deed. P appealed.