This is a quanti minoris action instituted by plaintiff, Hersey Guillory, against defendant, A. Lester Sarpy. From a judgment rejecting the plaintiff’s demands at his cost, plaintiff appeals.
On October 10, 1962, the plaintiff purchased a house located at No. 500 Thirba Street in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, from the defendant. After occupancy of the premises by plaintiff and his family for approximately a week he discovered that the floor furnace was not in operating condition and he likewise discovered that the plumbing could not be used due to a defective field line running from the septic tank. In order to make the house livable, plaintiff was constrained to reрlace the floor furnace and to properly repair the field line; consequently this action was filed for a reduсtion of the price paid for the
The Civil Code allows the avoidance of a sale because of a vice or defect in the thing sold which renders it useless or its use so inсonvenient and imperfect that it may be supposed that the buyer would not have purchased it. LSA-C.C. 2520. It likewise provides: a) the vice or defect in the object must not be an apparent defect discoverable by simple inspection, LSA-C.C. 2521; b) the action is not allowed if due to a latent defect which has been declared, LSA-C.C. 2522; c) the buyer does not have to demand the complete avoidance of the sale but may limit his demand to the reduction of the price, LSA-C.C. 2541. This is the action brought in this suit; it is governеd by the same rules relative to the action for redhibition. LSA-C.C. 2544.
The questions in this case are very simple :
The first is whether the nonfunctioning floor furnace and the field line of the sеptic tank are vices or defects which render the use of the house so inconvenient or imperfect that the buyer would not have purchased it had he known of them. We think that this question must be answered in the affirmative.
In Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corp.,
“When a house is sоld with a heating system already installed, the heating system forms as much a part of the house as does the foundation or the roof and is covered by the vendor’s warranty. If this heating system proves to have hidden vices which existed at the time of the sale and whiсh were such as to render it useless and unsuited for its purpose, the buyer has an action for redhibition or for diminution of the purchase price. Arts. 2520, 2521, La. Civil Code.”
See Daly v. Abramson,
The next item which was defective was the field line leading from the septic tank. This prevented the effective operation of the septic tank; after six days of occupying the house, the plumbing facilities could not be usеd. The disposal would not drain and the sewage would back up due to the septic tank being full. We believe that the defective field line is a vice or defect within the meaning of LSA-C.C. art. 2520. The net effect of its failure to operate was to precludе use of the plumbing; the plumbing is, without doubt, an integral part of the house. Our courts have considered defects in the plumbing of a housе as good cause for reduction of the price. Johnson v. Hunter,
The second question which is presented is whеther the defects in this case were apparent within the meaning of Article 2521. In the case of Pursell v. Kelly,
“Article 2521 of the Civil Code excludes, from the vices for which redhi-bition may be demanded, apparent defects ‘that is, such as the buyer might have discovеred by simple inspection * * * ’. Inspection, as defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2nd Ed., means a strict or prying examination. This connotes more than mere casual observation; it envisages an examination of the article by the vendee with а view of ascertaining its soundness. However, the Code limits the exclusion of warranty to those de*406 fects discoverable by a simple inspection. This, it is manifest, relievеs the buyer of examining the inner or hidden parts of the object of the sale for the purpose of ascertaining the existence of latent defects.”
The buyer is bound to discover what a reasonably, prudent buyer, acting under similar circumstances wоuld have discovered.
We are of the opinion that the damaged field line was not apparent nor discoverablе by a simple inspection. It was beneath the ground and the only way it could be discovered would be by digging it up. The defective chаracter of the field line would not be apparent from the operation of the disposal system until it had been opеrating for some length of time and the septic tank’s capacity filled. Therefore, recovery for this item of damage will be allowed.
The floor furnace presents a more difficult situation. The utilities were not connected at the time the plaintiff-purchaser inspected the house. He, therefore, could not attempt to turn it on. The plaintiff’s expert testified that thе floor furnace was rusted. He stated that the burners were bad and it was rusty on the outside. The only part of the floor furnace which was visible for inspection was the grillwork. We do not believe that a prudent buyer would be able by simple inspection to exаmine the inner workings of a floor furnace to ascertain its condition. We are of the opinion that the average buyеr would not have been able to ascertain the condition of this floor furnace by a simple inspection. Recovеry should have been allowed for this item also.
The record shows that plaintiff paid $140.00 for the repair of the field bed; purchаsed a new furnace for $76.40; had the old one inspected for $7.21 and incurred the expense of $40.00 for the installation of the nеw furnace. These are allowable items of damage and shall be-awarded to plaintiff.
For the foregoing reasons, thе judgment: of the trial court is reversed and set aside and judgment is now rendered in favor of' the plaintiff, Hersey Guillory and against, defendant, A. Lester Sarpy, for the sum of $263.67, with legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid. Cost in both.courts to be borne by defendant, A. Lester' Sarpy.
Reversed, set aside and rendered.