The present controversy arose out of a written contract under which appellant roofing contractors agreed to and did install a roof covering for the respondents on a flat roof deck which had been erected by respоndents on an owner-built home, the agreed price therefor being $487.12. The complaint, in a first count, alleges faulty workmanship by аppellant contractors, and that the roofing material used was insufficient and not of a proper type, even if properly installed, to withstand the pressure of static water resulting from rainfall, the flatness of the roof being known to appellants. A second count sets forth that in the matter of the selection of materials and method of installation, respondents asked for and relied upon the skill and knowledge of appellant contractors. The complaint prays for damagеs in the sum of $8,900.
Appellants filed a cross-complaint seeking to foreclose a mechanics’ lien, asking judgment for the contract price of $487.12. The answer filed by appellants consists of a general denial together with an allegation that “thе roof structure . . . was negligently and improperly designed and erected by plaintiffs. That plaintiffs did not provide adequate sloрe from the drainage of said roof structure, but . . . caused same to be erected so that it was concave to such аn extent that it was impossible for same to drain naturally. Furthermore plaintiffs *484 caused the drainage outlets for said roof structure to be designed and constructed on the upper side of the roof and not on the lower side of same. That plaintiffs well knеw these defects and did not communicate same to defendants.”
The trial court found that “defendants installed roofing material and slabs insufficient and not of proper type” for a fiat roof, by reason of which the roof covering “failed to hold wаter, and in the rains occurring in the months of December, 1948 and January, 1949, water leaked in and through the said roof covering, causing warping and permanent water staining of the hardwood floors . . . warping of window sills, and waterlogging and staining of inside plaster, warping of the roof deck, and water damage to the building generally,” plaintiffs’ damage being assessed at $1,825.
It was further found that “plaintiffs informed defendants that the roof-deck . . . was approximately flat, and that the defendants would be required to provide drains for said roof ”; that the roof material used was manufactured by defendants and was “the only type of roof covering they installed”; thаt defendants were roof specialists upon whose judgment plaintiffs relied, and that defendants had recommended the type of roof covering used. The trial court also found that defendants “were negligent in not making a proper inspection of said roof-deck before applying said roof covering”; that defendants did not provide proper drains, and that “said rоof covering as installed by the defendants was of no value to plaintiffs. ’ ’
In the trial court’s conclusions of law it is stated “That the lаw implied a warranty that said roof covering would be proper and fit for its said intended use, to wit, to effectively keep wаter out of plaintiff’s said house”; and that said warranty, “whether stated expressly in said written agreement of November 30, 1948, or implied in lаw, is a part of the contract.”
One of appellants’ main contentions is that the contract contained no written wаrranty “that the roofing material should be sufficient to withstand the pressure of static water”; that the trial court was in error in finding that there was any implied warranty, and that the contract by its terms provided that the written instrument was only agreement between the parties.
As pointed out in respondents’ brief, the trial court’s conclusion “That the law implied a warranty that said roof covering would be proper and fit for its said intended use,
*485
to wit, to effectively keep water out of plaintiff’s said house,” is correct. The following quotation from
Roscoe Moss Co.
v.
Jenkins,
The contract here under consideration involves a construction job and not a mere sale of roofing material as appellants’ brief seems to suggest. Obviously, the statement in the written contract that it contains the entire agreеment of the parties cannot furnish the appellants an avenue of escape from the entirely reasonablе obligation implied in all contracts to the effect that the work performed “shall be fit and proper for its said intended usе, ’ ’ as stated by the trial court. Such rule is as applicable to a roofing contract as to one for the drilling of a well whiсh was the subject of the contract in Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkms, supra, cited in the preceding paragraph. Such being the law, the admission of testimony relаting to this matter furnishes no reversible error.
Appellants’ contention that no such warranty was directly pleaded likewise presents no ground for reversal. As mentioned in respondents’ brief, the ultimate facts involving the implied warranty appear in the complaint, and this issue appears to have been “vigorously and exhaustively contested” at the trial. The findings and judgment, supportеd by substantial evidence and reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, may not be reversed for what is, at most, a mere defect in pleading. No substantial rights have been infringed upon, and no prejudicial error has been pointed out. Appellants’ various contentions are all untenable.
The judgment is affirmed.
White, P. J., and Drapeau, J., concurred.