(a) Express warranties by a vendor are created as follows: (1) Any written affirmation of fact or promise which relates to the improvement and is made a part of the basis of the bargain between the vendor and the purchaser shall create an express warranty that the improvement conforms to such affirmation or promise; (2) any written description of the improvement, including plans and specifications thereof which is made a part of the basis of the bargain between the vendor and the purchaser shall create an express warranty that the improvement conforms to such description; and (3) any sample or model which is made a part of the basis of the bargain between the vendor and the purchaser shall create an express warranty that the improvement conforms substantially to such sample or model.
(b) No formal words, such as “warranty” or “guarantee”, nor any specific intention to make a warranty shall be necessary to create an express warranty, provided a simple affirmation of the value of the improvement or a statement purporting to be an opinion or commendation of the improvement shall not of itself create such a warranty.
(c) No words in the contract of sale or the deed, nor merger of the contract of sale into such deed shall exclude or modify any express warranty made pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. Such warranty may, at any time after the execution of the contract of sale, be excluded or modified wholly or partially by any written instrument, signed by the purchaser, setting forth in detail the warranty to be excluded or modified, the consent of the purchaser to such exclusion or modification and the terms of the new agreement.
(d) An express warranty shall terminate: (1) In the case of an improvement completed at the time of the delivery of the deed to the purchaser, one year after the delivery or one year after the taking of possession by the purchaser, whichever occurs first; and (2) in the case of an improvement not completed at the time of delivery of the deed to the purchaser, one year after the date of the completion or one year after taking of possession by the purchaser, whichever occurs first.
(P.A. 75-637, S. 2.)
Cited. 196 C. 509; 232 C. 666.
Cited. 11 CA 289.
Subsec. (c):
Clear language of Subsec. precluded finding that express new home warranties were effectively disclaimed by language in sales contract. 62 CA 113.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1985–2017 · leading case:
Beucler v. Lloyd, 851 A.2d 358 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
Beucler v. Lloyd, 851 A.2d 358 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 19× “The plaintiffs brought this action, alleging, inter alia, breach of the express and implied new home warranties pursuant to General Statutes §§ 47-117 and 47-118 due to the paint peeling on the exterior of the house.”
Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 657 A.2d 1087 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes §§ 47-117 and 47-118. Thus, if the defendants had chosen to have the swimming pool installed by their new home builder as part of the contract for the construction of their new home, the installation of the pool presumably would have been subject to the…”
Willow Springs Condo. Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Dev. Corp., 717 A.2d 77 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 47-117 provides: “Express warranties, (a) Express warranties by a vendor are created as follows: (1) Any written affirmation of fact or promise which relates to the improvement and is made a part of the basis of the bargain between the vendor and the…”
Greene v. Perry, 771 A.2d 196 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiff thereafter brought this action against the defendant, alleging breach of contract 1 and negligence because of unworkmanlike performance, and breach of express and implied new home warranties pursuant to General Statutes §§ 47-117 and 47-118. The plaintiff also…”
Cafro v. Brophy, 774 A.2d 206 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 6× “General Statutes §47-117 (d) provides in relevant part: “An express warranty shall terminate: (1) In the case of an improvement completed at the time of the delivery of the deed to the purchaser, one year after the delivery or one year after the taking of possession by the…”
Luongo Constr. & Dev., LLC v. MacFarlane, 170 A.3d 57 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 6× “,1 violations of the new home express and implied warranties as set forth in General Statutes §§ 47-117, 47-118 and 47-121, a viola- tion of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.”
Cashman v. Calvo, 493 A.2d 891 (Conn. 1985).
· cites it 4× “This action was brought by the plaintiff home buyers for breach of the warranties provided by General Statutes §§ 47-117 and 47-118 concerning the construction of a home the plaintiffs purchased from the defendant builders.”
Winthrop House Ass'n v. Brookside Elm Ltd. Partners, 451 F. Supp. 2d 336 (D. Conn. 2005).
· cites it 13× “Indeed, as the Connecticut Appellate Court recently noted, “[t]he plain language of both §§ 47-117 and 47-118 expressly provides that no words in the contract of sale shall work to exclude or to modify any warranties created under the statutes unless there is a separate…”
Gibbs v. Mase, 526 A.2d 7 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 2× “In the second count of the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached an express warranty in violation of General Statutes § 47-117 (a) (1), and in the third and fourth counts, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant breached an implied warranty in violation…”
Solairaj v. Mannarino Builders, Inc., 143 A.3d 666 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 5× “" The warranties required by law are set forth in the General Statutes §§ 47-117 and 47-118. 6 After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence at trial supports the court's finding that the plaintiffs' demands in February and March, 2011, went beyond the…”
Beucler v. Lloyd, 870 A.2d 468 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 5× “The Appellate Court concluded that the written notice provision of the construction contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants modified the warranties created by General Statutes §§ 47-117 1 and *477 47-118 2 and, therefore, was inoperative.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-117(c) — 1 case
Winthrop House Ass'n v. Brookside Elm Ltd. Partners, 451 F. Supp. 2d 336 (D. Conn. 2005).
“Indeed, as the Connecticut Appellate Court recently noted, “[t]he plain language of both §§ 47-117 and 47-118 expressly provides that no words in the contract of sale shall work to exclude or to modify any warranties created under the statutes unless there is a separate…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-117(e) — 1 case
Winthrop House Ass'n v. Brookside Elm Ltd. Partners, 451 F. Supp. 2d 336 (D. Conn. 2005).
“Indeed, as the Connecticut Appellate Court recently noted, “[t]he plain language of both §§ 47-117 and 47-118 expressly provides that no words in the contract of sale shall work to exclude or to modify any warranties created under the statutes unless there is a separate…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.