Codd v. Shepard Builders, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Codd v. Shepard Builders, Inc.

28 A.2d 617, 129 N.J.L. 190, 1942 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 51

DecidedNovember 6, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.2d 617 (Codd v. Shepard Builders, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Codd v. Shepard Builders, Inc., 28 A.2d 617, 129 N.J.L. 190, 1942 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 51 (N.J. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Bodine, J.

The action was brought to recover damages by reason of the faulty construction of the house designated as No. 9 Talmadge Avenue, in the borough of Chatham, Morris County. The house was sold under a written contract signed by the purchasers. There were no warranties of any kind. By questions, at the trial, it was elicited that representations were made that the house was constructed of the best workmanship and was free of defects. N. J. S. A. 25 :l-5 requires a contract for the sale of land to be in writing. The written contract is silent as to any warranty. What was said or done during the negotiations thereof was inadmissible to supply terms with respect to matters as to which the writing was silent. Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. L. 331.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bodine, J.

The action was brought to recover damages by reason of the faulty construction of the house designated as No. 9 Talmadge Avenue, in the borough of Chatham, Morris County. The house was sold under a written contract signed by the purchasers. There were no warranties of any kind. By questions, at the trial, it was elicited that representations were made that the house was constructed of the best workmanship and was free of defects. N. J. S. A. 25 :l-5 requires a contract for the sale of land to be in writing. The written contract is silent as to any warranty. What was said or done during the negotiations thereof was inadmissible to supply terms with respect to matters as to which the writing was silent. Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. L. 331.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.2d 617, 129 N.J.L. 190, 1942 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/codd-v-shepard-builders-inc-nj-1942.