Robey v. Parnell, 33,852

Background

Robey (Plaintiff) hired Parnell (Defendant) to design and drill a replacement irrigation well after his old well failed; parties proceeded on a written estimate plus oral promises (no formal contract).
The estimate described a 120-foot well with an annular seal and an expected useful life of about fifty years; final invoice showed 115 feet and a concrete pad but no annular seal, and Plaintiff was told the difference was immaterial.
The well was completed in September 2007; by March 2011 it produced only sediment and air and effectively failed.
Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, negligent and knowing misrepresentation, consequential damages, and statutory claims under New Mexico’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UPA). After a bench trial the district court found an express warranty (50-year durability), breach, failure to meet workmanlike standards, awarded contract remedies (total paid) plus consequential damages, but dismissed UPA/unconscionability claims.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed liability findings (express warranty, breach, failure to meet workmanlike standard), affirmed most damages, reversed one $2,500 element of consequential damages as speculative, and rejected both parties’ other challenges (including UPA and unconscionability claims).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendant made an express warranty that the well would last ~50 years	Robey: Parnell expressly promised ~50‑year life and that became part of the bargain	Parnell: No express warranty; customary practice doesn't include such warranties and statute of frauds requires writing	Court: Affirmed express warranty — verbal promise became part of the basis of the bargain and was supported by substantial evidence
Whether Defendant breached the contract by not building to estimate/specifications	Robey: Contract based on estimate and oral promises; deviations (depth, missing annular seal) breached contract	Parnell: Estimate not a binding prescription; not bound to exact estimate specs	Court: Breach affirmed — parties contracted based on the estimate and evidence supported material deviations and failure to perform
Whether Defendant failed to design/construct the well in a workmanlike manner (implied warranty)	Robey: Expert testimony showed design/construction defects and regulatory departures caused failure	Parnell: Well functioned for ~4 years; failures are speculative and owner maintenance caused problems	Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence (expert testimony, deviations from standards) supported the workmanlike‑performance breach
Whether consequential damages were properly awarded and supported	Robey: Consequential items (filing fees, clean‑out, evaluations, plugging cost) flowed from breach	Parnell: Some items (notably $2,500 plugging estimate) speculative; consequential damages require foreseeability/special circumstances	Court: Mostly affirmed consequential damages as foreseeable and supported by receipts/exhibits, but reversed $2,500 plugging estimate as speculative; rejected need for special‑circumstances showing in these facts
Whether negligent misrepresentation supported damages	Robey: District court relied in part on negligent misrepresentation	Parnell: District court found key elements of negligent misrepresentation lacking — cannot support damages	Court: Although negligent misrep. claim failed on elements, its inclusion as alternative basis was harmless (no prejudice) because contract breach independently supported the damages
Whether UPA/unconscionable trade practice claims should have succeeded	Robey: Misrepresentations and poor value (well lasted <4 years vs promised 50) make UPA/unconscionability succeed	Parnell: Plaintiff failed to show knowingly made misrepresentations or gross disparity in value	Court: Affirmed dismissal — Plaintiff failed to prove the UPA’s higher "knowingly made" element and provided no objective evidence of gross disparity in value

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. Merrick, 66 N.M. 226, 345 P.2d 1042 (N.M. 1959) (no implied warranty that a drilled well will produce; distinguishes implied vs express warranties)
Salazar v. D.W.B.H., Inc., 144 N.M. 828, 192 P.3d 1205 (N.M. 2008) (express warranty need not be in writing; must be part of basis of the bargain)
Sunnyland Farms, Inc. v. Central N.M. Elec. Coop., Inc., 301 P.3d 387 (N.M. 2013) (consequential damages foreseeability and when special circumstances may be required)
First Nat’l Bank in Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 112 N.M. 317, 815 P.2d 613 (N.M. 1991) (party bearing burden must present accurate evidence of damages; speculative estimates disallowed)
State ex rel. King v. B & B Inv. Grp., Inc., 329 P.3d 658 (N.M. 2014) (UPA unconscionability inquiry focuses on objective gross disparity between price paid and value received)
Gooch v. Coleman, 22 N.M. 45, 159 P. 945 (N.M. 1916) (custom cannot contradict plain terms of an express contract)
Cotter v. Novak, 57 N.M. 639, 261 P.2d 827 (N.M. 1953) (negligence vs knowing standard discussion in premises liability context)
Baker v. Benedict, 92 N.M. 283, 587 P.2d 430 (N.M. 1978) (appellate court will not disturb findings when evidence substantially supports them)