The South Carolina Supreme Court has determined that when someone gives plans and specifications to a contractor to follow in a construction job, the person who delivered the plans impliedly warrants that the plans and specifications are sufficient for the purpose in view. See Hill v. Polar Pantries, 64 S.E.2d 885 (S.C. 1951). Whether the person who hands over the plans and specifications is actually the one who created them does not matter. This implied warranty physically travels with the plans and specifications from designer to owner, owner to contractor, contractor to subcontractor, and on down the line of whoever delivers the plans and specifications from one party to the next. This means, for example, that if a contractor furnishes specifications and plans to a subcontractor, the contractor impliedly warrants that those plans and specifications are sufficient to achieve the goal for which they were created. If the plans are not sufficient for that purpose, the contractor could be liable to the subcontractor. However, if the subcontractor does sue the contractor, the contractor could then sue the owner, and on up the chain of who delivered the plans and specifications. Hill v. Polar Pantries is the South Carolina case that first adopted the Spearin Doctrine. See United States v. Spearin 248 US 132, 137 (1918).

In Hill v. Polar Pantries, Snelling, the president of a frozen food locker plant, contracted with Hill and agreed to furnish the plans and specifications for a frozen food locker plant that Hill wanted to build. He also agreed to advise Hill and offer suggestions as to the structure and material. Within four weeks of turning on the cooling process in the new plant’s locker room, pin cracks appeared in the floor. About a year later, those cracks were three inches wide and the walls were also cracked. Hill sued for breach of contract, claiming Snelling furnished faulty, defective, and unsuitable plans and specifications for the plant’s insulation and that he improperly supervised the insulation work. Snelling claimed that unapproved changes were made to the plans and specifications; Hill responded that Snelling made those changes. The court left determining whether Snelling made the changes up to a jury but went on to hold that whoever does supply the plans and specifications impliedly warrants that they are sufficient for the purpose in view.

Snelling was experienced in operating the plant but had no particular experience in drawing up plans and specifications or in construction supervision. The court held that when a person represents himself as being qualified to perform a particular kind of work, even when he is not a licensed professional, he impliedly warrants that the work he undertakes will be of proper workmanship and reasonable fitness for its intended use.

The contract between Snelling and Hill did not specifically state that Snelling had to supervise the insulation work but the court found that this obligation was fairly implied by the parties’ own interpretation of the contract, as shown by both Hill and Snelling’s testimony at trial. The court noted that when a person has a duty to supervise the work, then that person may be held liable for failure to discover and condemn defective work.

What This Means for You:

• Be careful when giving plans and specifications to a party who will use them in a construction job. Even if you are simply handing them over, and had nothing to do with creating them, you can be held liable if the plans and specifications are insufficient to accomplish the purpose for which they were created.
• Even if you are not specially trained in a particular area, your agreement to do work in that specialized area will make you liable under an implied warranty of proper workmanship and reasonable fitness for intended use.
• If you have a duty to supervise the work, even if the contract does not specifically say so, you can be held liable for failing to discover defective work.

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.