1. State the defendants’ position on appeal.

2. Did the trial court improperly revise the written contract of the parties by implying terms not contained in the written agreement?

The Holguins ordered a bundle of services from AT&T and affiliates DISH California and EchoStar consisting of telephone, Internet and satellite television services, with Deborah Holguin signing up with the AT&T sales agents. The installation process did not go as planned. The DISH technician drilled through a sewer pipe in the Holguins’ wall, fed a satellite television cable through it, and patched the wall without repairing the sewer pipe. The improper installation was not discovered until 14 months later; and the damaged pipe leaked sewer water into the surrounding wall cavity and caused mold buildup in the Holguins’ home. As a result, the Holguins suffered respiratory problems and other health issues. The repair efforts were a nightmare causing the Holguins to hire their own contractor to complete the remediation work. The Holguins sued AT&T, DISH and EchoStar for breach of contract. From a judgment for the Holguins for $109,000 in compensatory damages and attorney fees, the defendants appealed.

JUDICIAL OPINION

O’ROURKE, J.… AT&T, DISH, and EchoStar contend that the trial court erred in interpreting the Holguins’ contract to contain an implied term requiring the Holguins’ satellite television equipment to be properly installed. At the Holguins’ request, the court instructed the jury on the implied term as follows: “The court has determined that the contract entered into by plaintiffs included an implied term that the satellite dish and related equipment would be properly installed in their residence.”

“The interpretation of a written instrument, even though it involves what might properly be called questions of fact, is essentially a judicial function to be exercised according to the generally accepted canons of interpretation so that the purposes of the instrument may be given effect.”

However, AT&T, DISH, and EchoStar do not address the well-settled principle that express contractual terms give rise to implied duties, violations of which may themselves constitute breaches of contract. “‘Accompanying every contract is a common-law duty to perform with care, skill, reasonable expedience, and faithfulness the thing agreed to be done, and a negligent failure to observe any of these conditions is a tort, as well as a breach of the contract.’

The rule which imposes this duty is of universal application as to all persons who by contract undertake professional or other business engagements requiring the exercise of care, skill and knowledge; the obligation is implied by law and need not be stated in the agreement.”… Here, each of the written instruments at issue contemplated installation of satellite television equipment. Since an object of these instruments and of the entire transaction was to provide the Holguins with satellite television equipment (so that they would subscribe to satellite television service), we see no error in identifying an implied contractual term requiring that such equipment be properly installed. Affirmed.