Return to Table of Contents

I. Breach of Contract

Alaska recognizes a standard breach of contract claim based on the contract between the builder and the seller, or the builder and buyer. Philbin v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 991 P.2d 1263 (Alaska 1999).

There is also an implied contract that work will be conducted in a workmanlike manner. This principle is based on the holding that an agreement to perform a contract necessarily implies an obligation to perform in a proper manner. Lewis v. Anchorage Asphalt Paving Co., 535 P.2d 1188, 1196 (Alaska 1975)(in building or construction contracts whenever someone holds himself out to be qualified to do a particular type of work, there is an implied warranty that the work will be done in a workmanlike manner, and that the resulting building, product, etc. will be reasonably fit for its intended use).

Promises set forth in a contract must be enforced by an action on that contract, and not in tort. Only where the duty breached is one imposed by law, such as a traditional tort law duty furthering social policy, may an action between contracting parties sound in tort. Alaska Pacific Assur. Co. v. Collins, 794 P.2d 936, 946 (Alaska1990). For example, there is duty imposed by law on professionals, such as architects, to assure the accuracy of their designs, but not necessarily project owners. State, Dept. of Natural Resources v. Transamerica Premier Ins. Co., 856 P.2d 766, 772 (Alaska 1993). The law similarly imposes a duty, enforceable in tort, on trades, such as electricians, carpenters and plumbers, to perform their work non-negligently. John's Heating Service v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1037 (Alaska 2002).