Melody Home Manufacturing Co. v. Barnes
72 A.L.R. 4th 259, 741 S.W.2d 349, 31 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 47 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A provider of repair or modification services for existing tangible goods or property impliedly warrants that such services will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner. This implied warranty, which cannot be disclaimed, is actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA).
Facts:
- In 1979, Lonnie and Donna Barnes ordered a modular pre-fabricated home from Melody Home Manufacturing Company.
- The home was delivered in May 1980, and the Barneses soon began experiencing persistent puddles and dampness inside.
- Over two years after moving in, the Barneses discovered that a sink drain inside a wall had never been connected, causing a continual leak.
- The leak led to severe water damage to the home’s sheetrock, insulation, and flooring.
- The Barneses informed Melody Home, which sent workmen on two separate occasions to make repairs.
- During the repair attempts, the workmen cut and tore the linoleum flooring.
- The workmen also failed to reconnect the washing machine drain after moving the appliance.
- This failure caused the house to flood, resulting in additional, widespread damage to the floors, cabinets, and carpeting.
Procedural Posture:
- Lonnie and Donna Barnes filed suit against Melody Home Manufacturing Company in a Texas trial court.
- The lawsuit alleged violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), including the breach of an implied warranty for repairs.
- A jury found that Melody Home had knowingly breached its implied warranty to perform repairs in a good and workmanlike manner and awarded discretionary damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Barneses.
- Melody Home, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Barneses.
- Melody Home then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 provider of repair services for existing tangible goods or property impliedly warrant that the repairs will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, the breach of which is actionable under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Spears, J.
Yes. An implied warranty to repair or modify existing tangible goods or property in a good and workmanlike manner is available to consumers suing under the DTPA. First, the Barneses were 'consumers' regarding the repair services because the repairs related back to the original purchase transaction; they 'purchased' the services by allowing Melody Home the opportunity to cure the defects rather than immediately filing suit. Second, public policy requires the creation of an implied warranty for services to protect consumers in a modern, service-oriented economy. This court defines 'good and workmanlike' as the quality of work performed by one with the knowledge, training, or experience necessary for the trade, and in a manner generally considered proficient. Finally, this implied warranty may not be waived or disclaimed, as doing so would undermine consumer expectations and encourage shoddy workmanship, which requires overruling G-W-L, Inc. v. Robichaux.
Concurring - Gonzalez, J.
While concurring in the judgment, the majority's creation of a broad new implied warranty for all repair services is an unnecessary and ill-advised act of judicial legislation. The court should have simply held that the existing 'Humber' warranty of good and workmanlike construction for a new home extends to a builder's subsequent attempts to repair that same home. Consumers already have adequate remedies for poor service in contract and tort law. The majority's opinion needlessly creates confusion, is inconsistent with the court's recent refusal to create such a warranty in Dennis v. Allison, and improperly overrules precedent on the non-waiver issue, which was not before the court.
Concurring - Mauzy, J.
The majority opinion is correct in all respects and this concurrence is written only to rebut Justice Gonzalez's concurrence. The court is not improperly legislating but is adapting the law to protect citizens from shoddy workmanship. The reason for the different outcome from Dennis v. Allison is that the composition of the court has changed through the elective process, and the new majority has a duty to correct what it perceives as past errors. The law must evolve to meet the needs of society rather than remain static and wrong.
Concurring - Campbell, J.
While agreeing with the result, the remedy created by the majority is overly broad. The holding should be limited to the facts of this case: a manufacturer who purports to remedy a defect that existed at the time the product was sold. The creation of a new implied warranty applicable to all service providers is unnecessary. Furthermore, the majority's discussion on the inability to disclaim this new warranty is dicta, as the issue was not raised as a point of error and should not impair the rights of parties to contract freely.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded consumer rights in Texas by judicially creating a new common-law cause of action: breach of an implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance for repair services. By making this new warranty actionable under the DTPA, the court exposed service providers to heightened liability, including attorney's fees and discretionary damages. The holding that this warranty cannot be disclaimed overruled existing precedent and curtailed freedom of contract in favor of consumer protection, signaling a major policy shift. The case demonstrates the court's willingness to create new legal duties and remedies to address what it perceives as imbalances in the modern marketplace.
Unlock the full brief for Melody Home Manufacturing Co. v. Barnes