Lipson v. Southgate Park Corp.
189 N.E.2d 191, 345 Mass. 621 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Promises in a real estate purchase agreement that are collateral to the main promise of conveying the land, such as the seller's obligation to construct a dwelling according to specific plans, are not extinguished by the doctrine of merger upon the buyer's acceptance of the deed.
Facts:
- On October 3, 1957, the plaintiff and defendant executed a written agreement for the sale of a parcel of land upon which the defendant was to construct a dwelling according to attached plans and specifications.
- The parties modified the agreement by striking out a clause stating that acceptance of the deed would not be conclusive of the seller's performance.
- However, the parties left intact a separate clause providing that 'the payment of the purchase price by the Buyer shall not be construed to constitute an acceptance of improper work or faulty materials.'
- On January 20, 1958, the defendant delivered the deed to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff paid the purchase price.
- At closing, the parties created an escrow agreement to withhold a small portion of the purchase price until the defendant completed minor items, specifically the installation of three appliances and property grading.
- After the plaintiff took possession, it was discovered that the dwelling was built in an unskillful manner, failed to comply with the plans and specifications, and was constructed with materials that were not of the best quality as stipulated in the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court for breach of a written construction and sale agreement.
- The case was sent to an auditor, who found in favor of the plaintiff.
- The case was subsequently tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
- At trial, the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict, which the trial judge denied.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the trial judge's denial of the motion, bringing the case before this court on an exception.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a home buyer's acceptance of a deed extinguish the seller-builder's contractual obligations regarding the quality of construction contained in the original purchase and sale agreement under the doctrine of merger?
Opinions:
Majority - Spiegel, J.
No. The acceptance of a deed does not extinguish the seller-builder's contractual obligations for construction quality because such obligations are collateral to the main promise to convey land. The court presented two lines of reasoning. First, it interpreted the surviving contract clause—that payment of the price does not constitute acceptance of improper work—as being functionally interchangeable with the acceptance of the deed, since payment and deed delivery are simultaneous acts. This indicates the parties' intent that construction obligations survive the closing. Second, and more importantly, the court applied the collateral agreement exception to the doctrine of merger. The general rule, as stated in Pybus v. Grasso, is that promises in a contract to sell land are merged into the deed. However, an exception exists for promises that are collateral to the main promise to convey land and are not inconsistent with the deed. The defendant's agreement involved two distinct undertakings: (1) to convey land, and (2) to construct a house according to detailed specifications. The promise to build the house is collateral to the conveyance, as construction specifications are not typically included in a deed. Therefore, the construction obligations survived the closing and could be enforced.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the 'collateral agreement' exception to the merger doctrine, particularly in the context of contracts for new construction. It establishes that a builder's detailed promises regarding the quality of construction are not wiped away simply because the buyer has accepted the deed. This provides significant protection for homebuyers, preventing builders from using the technicality of closing to evade liability for shoddy workmanship. The ruling aligns Massachusetts with the modern trend in other jurisdictions that treats construction obligations as independent covenants that survive the transfer of title, ensuring that the substance of the agreement (a well-built home) can be enforced.
Unlock the full brief for Lipson v. Southgate Park Corp.