Legal Question in Construction Law in California

The starting point would be whether your contract with this client contained any express warranties and/or whether it disclaimed any implied warranties.

The next inquiry would be whether your contract with her was primarily a contract for sale of goods, a pure contract for services, or a mixed services-and-materials contract. Different law (the Commercial Code provisions regarding sales) would probably apply if this were primarily a sale of goods, but I think most landscape construction jobs would be classified as service and materials agreements.

A quick check of California cases suggests that, unless your contract expressly denies any implied warranties, there will be a rather general implied warranty that the materials supplied will be of passable quality and the services will be rendered in a good and workmanlike manner. So, if you undersized the conductors or didn't bury and backfill as required under the code, she may have a case against you. Nevertheless, you aren't placed in the position of guaranteeing satisfaction or long-term performance or freedom from problems unrelated to your performace of the contract.

It's probably worth finding out the general nature of her complaint and considering the facts in light of what the contract says about warranties and the foregoing discussion.

If this client is threatening a lawsuit, it is in your best interest to avoid that by calling her back and asking what the problem is. Perhaps it is minor and can be dealt with easily. All licensed proffesionals, including lawyers, have difficult clients. They are the most likely to sue. Refusing to call her back will only increase the chances of a lawsuit. If you think dealing with her current complaint is a pain in the ass, dealing with her lawsuit will be much worse; and more expensive. Be polite and professional, and take detailed notes of your conversations with her and any remedial work that you do.

I totally agree with Mr. Chandler. Mr. Whipple is a little off base. Your work is a work of improvement to real property which is subject to a great deal of statutory and common law that has nothing to do with Mr. Whipple's Uniform Commercial Code analysis.

Under California law there is an implied warranty that cannot be waived that a work of improvement will be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner. There is a four-year statute of limitations on "patent" defects, meaning those that are plainly apparent or could be made apparent by reasonable inspection. There is a TEN year statute of limitations on "latent" defects: those not plainly apparent and not capable of being discovered even by reasonable inspection.

Of course you are not responsible for a client breaking things and if you don't want to go back and fix something for them that they damage, you don't have to. And you are not responsible for normal deterioration, wear and tear, etc. But if something wasn't installed right, or you installed something that was defective, then you could be on the hook. Reasonable minds can differ on what is "good and workmanlike." Construction litigation, and more recently mediation, has been part of my practice for over 20 years and those disagreements have paid me well.

So, bottom line, at the very least you need to go back out and see what's wrong. If its because of your materials or workmanship, just fix it and run. If you think it could be argued both ways as to whether you're responsible, I personally would just fix it and run, but that's your call. If she ran over the conduit and dug it up with a rototiller, fix it and bill her, but don't count on collecting . . . just run.