Harper

Harper v. Ultimo

Caution
113 Cal. App. 4th 1402·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1805·2003 Daily Journal DAR 13225·7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 418·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10501
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 5, 2003G031671California3,305 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

I

Laurence and Michaelyn Harper signed two contracts with Frank Ultimo and Ultimo Organization to stabilize the soil and re-level a pool on the Harpers’ property. Both contracts were preprinted. Ultimo rejected the Harpers’ attempt to add an “addendum” relating to start and stop dates, integration, and notification. The contracts also contained arbitration provisions, which provided that all controversies under, or related to the contract were to be settled “in accordance with the Uniform Rules for Better Business Bureau Arbitration.” The Better Business Bureau’s rules were not attached to the contract.

Allegedly, Ultimo broke a sewer pipe in the course of the work, with the result that concrete spread into the sewer system and soil, causing blocks to form in the house’s plumbing system. Ultimo also is supposed to have caused considerable damage to the backyard drainage system. And he misled the Harpers as to the amount of work performed.

The Harpers’ soon discovered, however, that the arbitration rules of the Better Business Bureau limit the damages and remedies available to dissatisfied customers. Customers cannot obtain compensation for “personal injuries” unless…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.