Mallin v. Good

The Mallins (plaintiffs) contracted to buy a home from Arline Good (defendant) under terms requiring all heating, plumbing, electrical, and air conditioning systems to be in reasonable working order at closing, with the roof separately inspected for defects beforehand and Good responsible for ensuring compliance. Inspection revealed a disrepaired roof along with a nonworking faucet and dryer, water leaks, and septic tank problems; at closing, the Mallins' attorney told Good's attorney they'd complete the sale but considered Good in breach and intended to enforce the repair covenants. When the Mallins sued, the trial court ruled for Good, holding the contract's terms merged into the deed at closing, which said nothing about the needed repairs, and the Mallins appealed.