Laws vary from state to state, but in some states the implied warranty of good and workmanlike repair of tangible goods or property attaches to a contract if the parties’ agreement does not provide for the quality of the services to be rendered or how such services are to be performed. And some courts have held that this implied warranty may not be waived or disclaimed.

Thus, the implied warranty of good and workmanlike repair or modification to tangible goods or property is a gap filler warranty that implies terms into a contract that fails to describe how the party or service is to perform. Although the parties cannot disclaim this warranty outright, an express warranty in their contract can fill the gaps covered by the implied warranty and supersede it if the express warranty specifically describes the manner, performance, or quality of the services.

The elements of a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance of services for the repair or modification of existing tangible goods or property are (1) the defendant sold services to the plaintiff; (2) the services involved the repair or modification of existing tangible goods or property; (3) the defendant failed to perform the services in a good and workmanlike manner; and (4) the defendant’s failure to perform the services in a good and workmanlike manner injured the plaintiff.

The term existing tangible goods refers generally to all moveable personal property other than money. The term repair means to restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken. The term “modification” broadly includes any change or alteration that introduces new elements into the details of the subject matter, or cancels some of them but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject matter intact.

And the term good and workmanlike means that quality of work performed by one who has the knowledge, training, or experience necessary for the successful practice of a trade or occupation, and performed in a manner generally considered proficient by those capable of judging such work.

In Utah, the concept of an implied warranty of good and workmanlike repair or modification to tangible goods or property is recognized as a legal standard that service providers must adhere to when a contract does not specify the quality or performance of the services. This implied warranty acts as a 'gap filler' to ensure that services are performed proficiently and to a standard that would be considered acceptable by those skilled in that trade or occupation. If a service provider fails to meet this standard, they may be in breach of the implied warranty. While parties cannot completely disclaim this implied warranty, they can supersede it with an express warranty that clearly outlines the quality and manner of the work to be performed. To establish a breach of this implied warranty in Utah, a plaintiff must show that the defendant provided services involving the repair or modification of existing tangible goods or property, failed to perform in a good and workmanlike manner, and that this failure resulted in harm to the plaintiff. 'Existing tangible goods' refers to movable personal property, excluding money, and 'repair' and 'modification' are defined in terms of restoring or altering the goods while maintaining their general purpose and effect.