Homeowner's Failure to Have Home up to Code Precludes Claim against Stove Seller/Installer
Do consumer product sellers have a duty to inform buyers about legal requirements associated with product installation and use?
The Ohio Court of Appeals recently considered that question in Taylor v. Best Buy Co., 2010 WL 3931487 (Ohio App. Oct. 7, 2010). In Taylor, a homeowner was shopping for a new stove. She had received an estimate at Home Depot, and Best Buy offered to match it, and to install the stove at a special price of $49.99. The salesman told her: "We do this all the time. We take it, we install it, and it will be in your house ready to go. You can cook dinner that night." Slip op at *1.
Plaintiff didn't know that Ohio law requires every gas outlet to have an individual shut-off valve within 6 feet of the appliance. Her shut-off valve was in the basement, far from the gas outlet in her kitchen. Plaintiff did not tell the salesman that she had an old home or discuss in any way the necessity for a shut-off valve.
In what must have been a huge disappointment, Best Buy arrived at plaintiff's house with the stove, but then refused to install it because to do so would be against the code. Best Buy's installers are not licensed plumbers; they informed plaintiff that she needed to find a licensed plumber to install a shutoff valve before they could install a stove.
Plaintiff hired a plumber, whom she paid $68 to install a shut-off valve. Best Buy then installed the stove for $49.99; it apparently did not charge her for the earlier failed installation attempt.
Plaintiff complained, and Best Buy offered her a courtesy check of $75. Plaintiff didn't cash it, but instead filed a putative class action for fraud, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant. And the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The court was unequivocal that the burden was on the homeowner -- not the appliance seller -- to know and comply with state law:
Best Buy had no responsibility to ensure that Taylor's home was code-compliant before delivering and installing Taylor's new stove. Under Ohio law, Taylor is required to have a gas shut-off valve present near the stove. This duty exists independent of any agreement between the parties. . . . In this instance, Taylor's failure to have the required shut-off valve was a violation of state code and a safety concern. Pursuant to Best Buy's policy, once Taylor's home was made code-compliant, Best Buy performed the installation for the contracted price and fulfilled its contractual obligations. . . .
Taylor further argues that Best Buy falsely represented that it would install the gas stove for a stated price. We agree with Best Buy's position that it had no duty to inform Taylor of applicable codes and that it performed the represented service for the stated price once Taylor complied with code requirements. . . .
Id. at *2.
Notably, Best Buy actually included in its product brochure information about the code requirement, although plaintiff claimed never to have read it. The court said that although including information about the code in the brochure made sense where the issue was commonplace, Best Buy was under no duty to do so. In fact, it held that plaintiff could not prove reliance on any representations by Best Buy because "[t]he presence of a shut-off valve as required by state code is a matter of law which Taylor is presumed to know." Id.
This decision highlights an important defense in many consumer product cases: the requirements of state law. Although this decision involved summary judgment, the conclusive nature of this defense often can support a motion to dismiss because it operates as a matter of law. This Court's twin conclusions of "no duty" and "no reliance" as a matter of law served as the basis for summary judgment on a variety of claims, from fraud, contract, "unjust enrichment" and the Consumer Sales Practices Act.
