In this cause, we are asked to determine whether the Amended Petition filed by two homeowners, Don and Verna Elden, stated a cause of action against the builder of the homе, Harry L. Riggs, and the supplier of bricks used in the home, Acme Brick Company. The action filed by the Eldens was filed in the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. That court sustained the demurrers to the Amended Petition, filed *741 by the home builder and the brick manufacturer, as well as the previous owners, Raymond and Bernice Simmons, who had conveyed the property to the Eldens.
Thе Court of Appeals, Division No. 2, reversed the action of the trial court, holding that the Amended Petition did state a cause of action against both Aeme Brick and the home builder, but did not state a cause of action against the Simmonses. Both Acme Brick and builder Riggs filed petitions seeking certiorari. These petitions were granted and certiorаri issued by prior order of this Court. No petition for certio-rari was filed by the Eldens, seeking review of the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the trial court's sustaining of the Simmonses' dеmurrer. This being the case, whether the petition stated a cause of action against the Simmonses is not before us for review, and the Court of Appeals' ruling on that issue is now final, and is now the law of the case.
We will first determine whether the El-dens' Amended Petition stated a cause of action against the builder-vendor of the home, Harry L. Riggs.
I
In Jeanguneat v. Jackie Hames Const. Co.,
The question before us today is whether such an implied warranty may be relied upon by one who is a subsequent purchaser of the homе, and not the direct purchaser from the builder-vendor. Put another way, the question before us is whether an existing implied warranty of habitability terminates upon resale.
Recently, in Old Albany Estates v. Highland Carpet Mills,
"We hold a manufacturer may be held Hable for breach of [an] implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for particular purpose under the Uniform Commercial Code without regard to privity of contract between the manufacturer and the ultimate buyer. Plaintiff, being in the chain of distribution, may mаintain a direct action against the defendant [manufacturer] to recover the benefit of his bargain in replacement of the carpet...." =~
In the case at hand, thе plaintiffs, present owners of the home, are the ultimate purchasers of the home, and thus in the vertical chain of distribution. Likewise, the contractor and builder of the homе, Mr. Riggs, is also in the chain of distribution and, we hold, may be considered the manufacturer of the home. Under our ruling in Old Albany Estates, supra, a homeowner is permitted to maintain suit against a buildеr or manufacturer of the home for breach of warranty or merchantability and fitness. We see no reason to apply a different rule in situations such as the one befоre us, where the warranties involved are warranties of habitability and construction in a workmanlike manner. Thus, plaintiffs may maintain a direct action against contractor Riggs, as builder, for breach of an implied warranty of habitability and completion in a workmanlike manner. Whether such warranties were, as to the bricks, still in effect at the. time of the аlleged breach, is measured by the standard of reasonableness and, as such, must be determined by a jury, Jeanguneat v. Jackie Hames Const. Co., supra. See also Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc.,
Accordingly, we hold that the petition before us does state a cause of action against contractor Riggs, and that the trial court erred in sustaining contractor Riggs' dеmurrer to the Amended Petition.
IL
Similarly, under the rationale of Old Albany Estates, supra, the plaintiffs, as ultimate purchasers, may maintain a breach of warranty action against the mаnufacturer of the bricks, Acme Brick Company, even though no privity of contract exists between the plaintiffs and Acme Brick, as Acme is a manufacturer in the chain of distribution. Thus, the Petition before us did state a cause of action against Acme Brick. The trial court, therefore, erred in sustaining Acme's demurrer to the Amended Petition. Again, as in the casе of contractor Riggs, the duration of Aeme's warranty of the bricks is measured by the standard of reasonableness. It will be for a jury to decide whether the bricks, meant to be used for an exterior of a home, are warranted not to crumble, crack and split within two or three years of construction of the home.
In reaching our holdings today, we note that the requirement of vertical privity as a prerequisite to suit on an implied or express warranty, both under the Uniform Commercial Code and outside the Code, is, given today's mаrket structure, an antiquated notion. A manufactured product placed in the chain of distribution may literally pass through dozens of hands before it reaches the ultimate cоnsumer. When the product is found to be defective, it makes little sense to allow the ultimate consumer redress against his immediate vendors only. If such were the case, the cоnsumer's immediate vendor, if he were to have the full benefit of his bargain, would have to, in turn, sue his immediate vendor, who would, in turn, have to sue his vendor, and so on up the chain, until the party ultimаtely responsible for placing a defective product in the market is reached. It defies common sense to require such an endless chain of litigation in order to hоld the party at fault responsible. For this reason, this Court, in Old Albany Estates v. Highland Carpet Mills, supra, eliminated the requirement of vertical privity, thus allowing ultimate consumers to bring direct breach of warranty actions against manufacturers of products which are allegedly defective.
The reasons for our holding in Old Albany Estates, supra, are just as applicаble in cases in which the product is a home. Whether the ultimate consumer is the original purchaser of the home is not a controlling factor, as privity is not required, and as thе duration of the implied warranties involved is governed by the standard of reasonableness. If a jury finds that a particular defective component is still under warranty, the ultimate сonsumer (the present owner) may recover against the builder and/or the manufacturer of the component, if a breach of warranty is found to exist. In short, we hold today thаt (1) the duration of the implied warranties of habitability and construction in a workmanlike manner does not necessarily terminate on transfer of title to the home, and (2) that prеsent owners of a home are not required to have privity of contract with either the home builder or manufacturer of a particular component involved, in order to maintain an action for breach of warranty.
*743 For the above stated reasons, we reverse the trial court's sustaining of the demurrers to the plaintiffs' Amended Petition, filed by contractor Riggs and the Acme Brick Company. Because the Petition did state a cause of action, the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Notes
. While it is arguable that actions, such as the one before us, would be an action upon a contract express or implied, not in writing, and thus must be brought within three years after the cause of action shall have accrued,